Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir William Jenkins, Member for the County of Glamorgan (Neath Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (SUSPENDED BILL)

To be read the Third time upon Thursday at Three o'Clock.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL [Lords] (SUSPENDED BILL) (By Order).

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday at Three o'Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

6th Airborne Division (Army Form B 2626)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the officers and other ranks of the 6th Airborne Division have now completed A.F. B 2626).

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I propose to make a general statement in the near future as to the progress in obtaining signature of A.F. B 2626, but I do not think that it would be right to disclose information about particular formations or units.

Mr. Driberg: With regard to this particular Division, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether any investigation was made following a letter which I wrote to him on 8th November on this matter?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot answer that off-hand; what I can say is that a general circular was sent out, as I have told the House several times, telling units to carry out a census in the early weeks of November and then to report the results.

Railway Canteen Facilities (Women's Land Army)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give instructions that members of the Women's Land Army shall continue to be served at Service canteens in or connected with railway stations, where this has been done in the past, and that similar facilities shall be provided for Women's Land Army members at other station canteens, where, in the opinion of the managing organisation, congestion will not be thereby created.

Sir. J. Grigg: This question has been examined very carefully. These canteens are intended for service men and women. If members of the Land Army were admitted, members of a number of other bodies, such as the N.F.S. when working with the Army, could not in fairness be excluded. I regret therefore, that as long as these facilities, which include equipment and materials in short supply, are limited, members of the Land Army cannot be admitted to them. If they have been admitted anywhere in the past this was no doubt done in ignorance of instructions.

Mr. Turton: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the withdrawal of the privilege at this late stage of the war from girls who have done great work in the war effort, will cause great offence?

Sir J. Grigg: When the canteens were started, extra supplies of food were obtained for Service men and women, and I regard myself as under an obligation to the Ministry of Food that the canteens shall be used for the purpose for which the food was granted.

Damage (Heath Common, Wakefield)

Mr. T. J. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the petition of the inhabitants of Heath Common. Wakefield, as to the bad state of


the footpaths, etc., near to the houses of these people caused by the troops stationed at Heath, near Wakefield; and what is he prepared to do about it, in view of the danger to these pedestrians and children.

Sir J. Grigg: Instructions have been issued prohibiting, as far as possible, the use of paths in certain parts of Heath Common and of entries to houses by vehicles of the unit stationed there. Steps are being taken to make good the damage done.

Overseas Service (Home Posting)

Mr. Touche: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is such a shortage of skilled signals troops in S.E.A.C. that men in the Royal Corps of Signals in that command are excluded from the repatriation scheme; and whether he can make a statement on the subject.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the letter from the wife of a soldier serving in the Signals Corps, S.E.A.C., sent to him by the Member for West Fife, and, in view of the strong feeling at the exclusion of these men from the repatriation scheme after four years' service, will he reconsider his decision and include them in the scheme.

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Members state that men of the Royal Corps of Signals serving in S.E.A.C. are excluded from the repatriation scheme. In this they are misinformed. As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Quintin Hogg) on 5th December, for operational reasons their repatriation will be delayed for a few months.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers are now serving who have got five plus, six plus and seven and upwards years continuous overseas service; and whether irrespective of their applying for transfer to home service such officers will, in default of their express wish to stay, be transferred to home establishment as soon as possible.

Sir J. Grigg: The number of British service officers who have been continuously overseas for more than five years, and who wish to return to this

country, must be very small. In one theatre I have heard that officers are expected to apply for repatriation instead of being offered it, and I am inquiring into this.

Wing-Commander James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are officers and N.C.O's who have not applied for return, in spite of being many years overseas? Can we have an assurance that they will be posted home?

Sir J. Grigg: I would rather not, at the moment, go beyond promising the inquiry into this one theatre, which I mentioned in my answer. In this theatre quite a number of people have made it clear that they do not wish to come home. In other cases I think it is true that they have not been offered facilities, and that they thought it none of their business to put forward their claims.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, to remove anxiety, he will state the effect of the new leave scheme under the Python repatriation scheme, on the rights of men enjoying its benefits.

Sir J. Grigg: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the suggestion which appeared in a daily newspaper that the new leave scheme would diminish the number of soldiers sent home under the repatriation schemes. This is not so, and the matter is made clear by the following passage from the Prime Minister's announcement of 17th November:
Of course the existing arrangements for posting home of men on urgent compassionate grounds will continue unaffected by this leave scheme, as will also the entitlement to repatriation of men who have served continuously overseas for those periods which my right hon. Friend indicated in this House on 26th September as the present objective in the reduction of the overseas tour of service in the Army. This is in addition to, and not a substitution for anything going on now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 2240.]
Perhaps I might take this opportunity of correcting another misleading suggestion contained in the same article namely that soldiers will lose their claims under the repatriation scheme because the scheme for release at the end of the German war will supersede and cancel it. This is not so and it has never been intended that it should be so. I should like to make an appeal to the Press to be very careful before they put in circulation stories


which are likely to cause unnecessary perturbation to soldiers and their families. Given the man-power position we are not able to reduce the overseas tour as much as we should like and a certain number of hopes are bound to go unrealised. But it is bad for morale generally and unnecessarily distressing to relatives if conditions are made out to be worse than they in fact are.

Mr. Hogg: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his very reassuring reply, may I ask will he see that his answer has widespread publicity in overseas theatres, as letters have already reached me complaining of the points that he has reassured us about?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly see that they are sent out and I will try to see that they are published in the theatre newspapers.

Desertion Charge

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to give a reply to a question posed to him on 7th November in regard to the case of 184185 W/Corporal R. F. Holmes whose home adddess is Sunning-well, Berkshire.

Sir J. Grigg: This man was discharged from hospital on 11th July with orders to report to a reinforcement holding unit. He disregarded these instructions and rejoined his old unit direct. The holding unit, of course, knew nothing of this and after 21 days took the normal action to deal with the man as a deserter. The man's unit was certainly somewhat dilatory in reporting that he had rejoined them, but if he had obeyed his orders when he left hospital the trouble would have been avoided.

Sir R. Glyn: Can steps be taken to see that in such cases uniformed police do not visit a man's home, and thus cause local scandal?

Sir J. Grigg: If my hon. Friend is referring to military police, they have to wear a uniform, because they have no civilian clothes.

Sir R. Glyn: I was referring to civil police.

Home Guard (Rifle Clubs)

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can clarify the

position of the Territorial Army Associations and the proposed ex-Home Guard Rifle Clubs so that it may be clear if absolute discretion rests with the associations to decide whether recognition shall be accorded to those clubs depending upon their size and location.

Sir J. Grigg: The instructions issued give Territorial Army Associations authority to form and control such clubs. The instructions say:
Each Association will be left free to prepare its own scheme on lines which will work satisfactorily in its county.

Overseas Postings

Mr. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War, if the Service Departments will henceforth take into account Service men's demoblisation group numbers before they are posted for service in the Far East.

Sir J. Grigg: As far as is practicable in present circumstances, men due for early release are not being sent to distant theatres of war.

Mr. Guy: Is the Minister aware that there are men who have been four or five years overseas, who come in the early category of demobilisation if it is carried out fairly? Is he further aware that they might have to spend another four or five years overseas? What sense is there in sending them abroad?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not believe that the hon. Member could have listened to my answer. I said:
As far as is practicable in present circumstances, men due for early release are not being sent to distant theatres of war.
In any case, if they are they do not lose their rights of earlier release.

Mr. Guy: May we have an assurance that men being sent overseas will be included in their demoblisation group?

Sir J. Grigg: I have given the most explicit assurance that I can, and I am afraid I cannot give any more.

Chaplains (Release)

Mr. Storey: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether the priority of release of chaplains to the Forces will be settled in accordance with the terms of the age plus length of service scheme.

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. They will be treated in the same way as other officers.

Mr. Storey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that chaplains in France have been informed, since the Minister of Labour's statement, that they will not be so released?

Sir J. Grigg: If my hon. Friend will give me a specific instance of a chaplain who has been informed in that sense, I will inquire into it, and endeavour to ascertain by whom he was so informed.

Welfare and Canteen Equipment (Disposal)

Lady Apsley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements can be made for Army welfare amenities and all voluntary canteen equipment when no longer needed, to become available for hire or purchase by ex-Service men and women through their County Territorial Associations.

Sir J. Grigg: This matter is under examination.

Cadet Force (Strength)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the present number of Army cadets; and what was the number 12 months ago.

Sir J. Grigg: The strength of the Army Cadet Force is obtained twice yearly. The strength on 31st January, 1944, was 177,200 officers and cadets and on 31st July 177,785 officers and cadets.

Mr. Noel Coward (Visits to Fronts)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Noel Coward's visits to the fronts are at the cost of the taxpayer.

Sir J. Grigg: Mr. Noel Coward has visited troops in various war theatres in order to entertain the troops. I am not aware of all the detailed arrangements which have been made in the different theatres. In so far as the arrangements have been made by E.N.S.A. it would be in accordance with the normal practice for the cost of sea transport and local Army transport to be borne by E.N.S.A.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it too late for this gallant but undecorated representative to go into uniform?

Christmas Leave

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant

Christmas leave to troops now in this country who have recently returned from varying periods of service overseas.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the position regarding Christmas at home for those enjoying 28 days' disembarkation leave in this country.

Sir J. Grigg: I will with permission circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Bellenger: Could the Minister say whether that answer is favourable to the point of view expressed in my Question?

Sir J. Grigg: It is a mixed answer.

Following is the answer:

I will start by making it clear that repatriation is a continuous process and that there must be in this country many thousands of people who would regard themselves as having, "recently returned from varying periods of service overseas." All of them got disembarkation leave on return, and I should think a large proportion of them 28 days. When disembarkation leave is over they are posted to home units and take their turn for leave with their comrades in these units.

There are also at the present time at home a considerable number of soldiers who have returned to home units after having been wounded while serving with the B.L.A. As regards the home establishments generally, travel restrictions have limited Christmas leave to not more than 10 per cent. for some years past. There must, therefore, be a large number of men in the United Kingdom at present, in addition to those recently repatriated, who have not spent Christmas at home since they joined the Army. I do not believe that given the travel restrictions it is possible to do What the hon. Members ask generally without causing a great deal of unfairness and heartburning. In some cases, however, men recently repatriated can take advantage of the fact that leave on short pass is still possible during the Christmas period so long as journeys are limited to a 20 mile radius.

Compassionate Leave Application, Streatham

Mr. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has looked into the refusal of an application for compassionate leave for one only of six sons


of a resident in Streatham, of whom particulars have been sent to him, all serving overseas, to visit their mother, who lay dying.

Sir J. Grigg: As the answer is necessarily rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department did not even acknowledge a written application, and that when I intervened I was told that this exceptional case was entitled only to the lowest priority, and that there was no possibility of getting leave?

Sir J. Grigg: I think it was a case where the application was delivered in person, and I am told that in those cases, when the applicant is satisfied that the application has been so delivered, an acknowledgment is not sent. As regards the question of priority, I think the words were—I looked them up carefully last night—"a low priority," not the lowest. I would, however, be grateful if my hon. Friend would read my answer. If he then wishes to raise the matter again I should be quite willing to discuss it with him.

Mr. Robertson: Further to that explanation, does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that common humanity requires that an answer should be sent to an application of this kind? Is he further aware that this dying woman was asking day by day for news, and had no acknowledgment at all?

Sir J. Grigg: The application was delivered in person to one of the branches of the War Office, and it was quite clear that she was in a position to know that it had been delivered. After that, an application has to go to the theatre of war concerned, where the Commander-in-Chief has the final voice in the matter. But, as I have said, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would read my answer and then raise any extra points he wishes to raise.

Following is the answer:

Under the existing practice applications for compassionate leave on account of the illness of a parent are only forwarded to commanders-in-chief with a high priority assessment when there is a

chance that the son's presence would save the parent's life or when he is an only child or when all the children are abroad. The reasons for this are of course that it has only been possible to grant compassionate leave or repatriation in a limited number of cases, particularly from distant theatres, and that there are, unfortunately, very numerous instances of family misfortune even more distressing than the mortal illness of a parent. There are, for example, the cases of the serious illness of a wife with young children or the serious illness of a child.

The case in which my hon. Friend is interested was that of a dying mother. All six sons were serving overseas but there were two daughters living with her at home. There was no prospect that the son's presence would save the mother's life.

My hon. Friend was, therefore—I think correctly—informed that in forwarding the application to the Commander-in-Chief it could only be assigned a low priority. I am afraid that this was inevitable in view of the thousands of applications we receive and it would be wrong of me to hold out the hope that similar cases in future can be assigned higher priority. On the other hand the recent institution of leave schemes—as opposed to repatriation—for the principal overseas theatres may make it possible to send home a larger number of compassionate cases, particularly from the B.L.A. As no doubt my hon. Friend knows, the final decision in all such cases is left with commanders-in-chief.

Men on Leave (Uniforms)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the uniforms of soldiers arriving in this country on leave are necessarily very dirty after their long journey; whether he will arrange for priority for their cleaning, and also for coupons to be supplied to men who have outgrown the civilian clothes which they left at home.

Sir J. Grigg: Clean uniforms are usually issued to men from the British Liberation Army who need them, before they sail for this country. Men who arrive in this country from distant theatres have worn out clothing replaced when they arrive, before they are sent home. I am considering whether any further measures are necessary.

Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of these men have been three weeks or more on the way, and that it will be longer when they come from the Far East and that this is a substantial grievance which ought to be met? If the Government cannot tackle it would he consider handing it over to a welfare organisation?

Sir J. Grigg: The suggestion in the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is entirely unwarranted. As regards the first part, I have already said that I am considering whether any further measures are necessary.

Mr. Keeling: It is urgent.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN CO-OPERATORS (SCARBOROUGH)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what are the present arrangements for supervision over the Italian prisoners stationed near Scarborough;
(2) if he is aware that there are Italian prisoners stationed near Scarborough who are of no assistance to the farmers and who have been caught stealing produce; and if he will see that a stricter control is kept over these men.

Sir J. Grigg: With the hon. Member's permission I will answer these two questions together. These prisoners of war are co-operators. They are supervised by two British sergeants. No complaints have been received by the Camp Commandant or by these non-commissioned officers that the work of the prisoners is unsatisfactory. One complaint was made about a fortnight ago that an Italian prisoner had stolen some apples, but the complainant failed to identify the man at a parade held in the presence of the local police.

Mr. Spearman: If I give my right hon. Friend evidence of other misdeeds and thefts, would he consider increasing the supervision in this camp so that any section of it shall not be permitted to bring discredit on the whole camp?

Sir J. Grigg: I think it would be very much better if the hon. Member first ensured that the local inhabitants took complaints to the camp commandant so that he could investigate them on the spot, where all the facilities are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES (FRANCE AND BELGIUM)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the gardeners of the Imperial War Graves Commission who have families in France or Belgium are now permitted to return to those countries.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7th November to which I have nothing at present to add.

Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that since I put down my Question, some of these gardeners have been told to go back?

Sir J. Grigg: In my previous answer I indicated that they would be returned at the earliest possible date. I have nothing more to add to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Far East

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has now had an opportunity to examine the evidence of prisoners of war who escaped from a Japanese transport recently sunk; and if he will make a general statement regarding conditions in Japanese camps, the delivery of parcels to prisoners and of letters to and from prisoners.

Sir J. Grigg: The information obtained from the rescued prisoners of war is being examined and collated and I hope to make a further statement shortly. In reply to the second part of the Question I can at present add nothing to the information I have already given to the House

Sir A. Knox: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when he will be able to make a statement, because there is great anxiety?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir,, I certainly hope to do so before the House rises; I will try to make it early next week.

Major Keatinge: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give help and encouragement for those who have returned from Japanese prison camps to


meet the friends and relations of others left behind in order to pass on all available news.

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many parents have heard no news of their sons who were taken prisoner when Singapore fell; and whether he has been able to obtain any detailed information from the men rescued from a torpedoed Japanese ship who have arrived in this country which could allay the anxiety which is being felt by the relatives of the prisoners of war in question.

Sir J. Grigg: I understand the anxiety of relatives and friends of prisoners of war in Japanese hands to obtain first-hand information from the men lately rescued. Every scrap of information which these men have given has been, or will be, sent to next-of-kin concerned as soon as it has been sifted and checked. It would be unfair to the relatives to send it until this has been done. The men have shown themselves extremely willing and helpful in these investigations and I think it is unfair to them to pursue them further with private inquiries. As relatively very few men have got back and as the Japanese camps are widely scattered it is unlikely that these men will have information about more than a small proportion of all the prisoners. If, therefore, next-of-kin hear nothing, I am afraid it is because nothing new has been heard of the particular prisoner.

Major Kentinge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nothing can stop these men from talking to their neighbours, and that the impression getting abroad is that conditions are not quite so universally bad as recent statements might suggest?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, I have seen statements in several quarters, and I propose to deal with this point in the statement I have promised to make. I think the explanation is that while they were working on the railway, conditions were horrible but, as I said in my previous answer, the conditions improved when they were taken away from the railway and sent back to the rest camp.

Germany (Parcels)

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement regarding the supply of parcels to

prisoners of war in Germany, giving the number of parcels at present, respectively, at Lisbon, Marseilles, Gothenburg and Geneva and an estimate of the average reserves at camps in Germany; the cause of delay in transport by various routes; and the plans and prospects for the future.

Sir J. Grigg: Since the route to Geneva was re-opened the parcel position for prisoners in Germany has steadily improved. But as I have said in previous replies, this is subject to the difficulties due to operations of war and to the dislocation of the German transport system. I am circulating further particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. Knox: What would be the recognised line of supply? Through Marseilles or through Gothenburg?

Sir J. Grigg: The statement I am circulating is quite a long one, and there is a good deal of information in it on that point.

Following are the particulars:

The number of standard food parcels for British prisoners of war now at Lisbon has been reduced to about 1,250,000 and there is now a regular service of shipping from Lisbon which is clearing the accumulation there. The transport position in the South of France has improved owing to the active co-operation of the military authorities. All Red Cross supply traffic is now passing through Toulon. There is little or no delay after supplies are unloaded at Toulon before they are despatched by rail to Geneva.

The latest figure I have for parcels at Geneva is for the end of October when there were about 1,000,000 parcels as a result of some trainloads having been returned from Germany as undeliverable owing, I presume, to restrictions caused by military requirements. More than half of the total supplies for all prisoners of war sent to Gothenburg have already been distributed into Germany and I hope that this rate of despatch will continue, and may be improved. It is not at present clear whether these included the 400,000 Canadian food parcels which were sent to Gothenburg.

Such delays as still take place in Transport of parcels to the camps from Gothenburg on the one hand, and from the south of France on the other, are due almost always to circumstances arising out of


military operations and difficulties of communications in Germany. It is difficult to find out at any given moment what reserves are held in camps and I would prefer not to give any estimate.

As to the future, my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that as soon as it is considered the supply position so justifies, the scale for British prisoners of war supplies will be restored to its former level. The International Red Cross Committee have already been authorised by the British Red Cross War Organisation to despatch three parcels for every British prisoner during the month of December, and I hope that one of these may be the special Christmas food parcels, most, if not all, of which have already reached Geneva. The prospects of maintaining supplies to the camps on the scale we regard as desirable must, of course, depend on the course of military operations.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Coal Fields Committee (Report)

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now able to publish, or, alternatively, issue to Scottish Members a copy of the Report of the Scottish Coal Fields Committee.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The printing of this report, I am now happy to say, is approaching completion and copies, I am informed, will be in the Vote Office next week.

Mr. Davidson: In view of certain rumours with regard to what I may call that more serious aspect of this Report, will my right hon. Friend consider issuing at the same time a statement as to what steps the Department has taken in the meantime?

Mr. Johnston: The Report is published in the first instance for the information of Parliament, and it is thereafter for the Government or Parliament to take whatever steps they think proper.

Teachers (Armed Forces)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish teachers are presently serving in the forces; and what percentage their number forms of the total male-teaching profession.

Mr. Johnston: As the answer includes a table of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

The latest date for which complete figures are available is 31st March, 1943, when the position was as follows:


—
Men
Women
Total


(i) Serving with H.M. Forces
2,186*
32
2,218


(ii) Engaged in other forms of war service which are accepted for the purposes of the Education (Scotland) (War Service Superannuation) Act, 1939, and the Superannuation Scheme for Teachers (Scotland), 1926

39
297



2,444
71
2,515


* This number represents just over 25 per cent. of the total male teachers at 31st March, 1943. It does not include 82 teachers who were known to be serving with H.M. Forces at that date, but who had not been employed in teaching immediately prior to entering on such service.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made for emergency training courses for prospective teachers; how many men and women in the services are taking correspondence courses organised by Scottish training departments; and what other steps he is taking to make known among the services the claims and needs of the Scottish teaching profession.

Mr. Johnston: A Central Selection Board has been set up by the National Committee for the Training of Teachers to consider applications for admission to the teaching profession in Scotland from men and women in the Services, or in commerce or industry, and the nature of the courses to be followed. A series of correspondence courses for Service men and women has been arranged by the War Office in association with the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department. These courses are available to Navy, Army and Air Force personnel. A joint leaflet relating to the emergency recruitment and training of teachers was drawn up in May last for distribution to personnel of the Army Educational Corps and those in similar posts in the other Services. A further


and more detailed leaflet dealing with conditions in the teaching profession in Scotland is in course of preparation and will be made available to members of the Services and the public generally.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the additional leaflet for Scotland is made an attractive one and not just be rather formal notice which has already been sent from the War Office?

Mr. Johnston: I will certainly look at the reprint but, of course, the facts are outstanding.

Food Prosecution, Glasgow (Onus of Proof)

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Lord Advocate if his attention has been drawn to a decision in the Glasgow Sheriff Court on 24th July last, where a firm of restaurateurs, charged with obtaining meat to the value of £1,500 without a permit from the local food office, were found not guilty on direction from the learned sheriff on the ground that the onus of proof of their entitlement lay with the Fiscal; and if he will take steps to assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England in that matter.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I have inquired into this case. In accordance with Scottish practice in cases tried on indictment the Crown undertook the onus of proof in this matter, but in this case the Crown failed in the proof. The law as to onus of proof in this matter has not been authoritatively settled in Scotland. I am considering whether any change in the existing practice is desirable.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if this decision is permitted to stand every Statutory Order made by the Minister of Food becomes abortive? This was one of the filthiest cases in Scotland and the people got out it. If the law is left as it is, the onus of proof that any person purchased rationed commodities lies with the Ministry of Food instead of the purchasing authority.

The Lord Advocate: I have said that I am considering the matter. I should not like to act hastily in a matter which affects the rights and interests of accused persons, but I will certainly look into

it and reach a decision at an early date as to the proper next step to take.

Sir Herbert Williams: Are we to understand that in Scotland a man is presumed guilty until he proves himself innocent?

The Lord Advocate: No, at present it is the other way. We undertake the onus of proof and it is represented that we should not.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this direction prevented any proof and that there was no rebutting evidence that the £1,500 worth of meat was illegally obtained? They never rebutted the charge. The Sheriff directed that the Fiscal ought to prove that these people have authority to buy. The thing is absurd.

The Lord Advocate: That is not in accordance with my information. The Crown attempted to prove that the man did not have a permit. The evidence on that point was not satisfactory and was not accepted, and therefore the Sheriff directed that the jury should return a verdict of not guilty.

Mr. McKinlay: I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBING TARGETS, GERMANY

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Prime Minister whether he will notify Germany that while they continue their war on our civilians, by robots and rockets, we shall bomb German cities such as Dresden, Breslau, Magdeburg and elsewhere.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): As my hon. Friend has already been informed, the principle on which our targets in Germany are selected is that of destroying as quickly as possible Germany's power to wage war. There really is no comparison between what they are able to do to us and what we are doing to them.

Mr. Purbrick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1942 the Prime Minister broadcast to Germany that, if they employed gas, we should retaliate in the same way? In the present circumstances does he not think that a similar warning might be very effective?

Mr. Eden: I prefer the line of my answer.

Mr. Tinker: I trust that the Government will only be guided by military considerations.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE AND CRETE, LIBERATION (BRITISH EMPIRE CASUALTIES)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Prime Minister our approximate losses in men, ships and aeroplanes in connection with the operations to free Greece and Crete from German-Italian domination and whether any other allied nation took an active part in these operations.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The total casualties in killed, wounded and missing or prisoners of war suffered by Imperial Military Forces, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy in the above operations to free Greece and Crete down to the time of the German evacuation amounted to some 40,000, mainly in 1941. Nearly 500 aircraft have been lost, and in addition the following warships have been lost or badly damaged, together with the loss of some 120,000 tons of British merchant shipping.

Lost:



Cruisers
5


Destroyers
13


Sloops
1


Submarines
3


Minor Vessels
47


Badly damaged:



Battleships
3


Escort Carriers
1


Cruisers
12


Destroyers
10


Corvettes
1


Submarines
3


Small number of minor War Vessels.

It must be remembered that in those days we were all alone against a victorious Germany and Italy, and in dire peril.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not obvious from these figures that the British Commonwealth of Nations have taken by far the greatest part in the liberation of this country?

Mr. Eden: There is no question of that.

Mr. Bowles: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures since the re-landing in Greece?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member is referring to the fighting now going on in Athens, I have no detailed figures at present but I understand that the casualties are, happily, very small so far.

Mr. Bowles: I was referring not to that but to the casualties since the re-landing?

Mr. Eden: My figures go down to the time of the German evacuation. If the hon. Member will put a Question down, I will try to give the figures separately.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Post-War Commitments

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state under general headings the policy of His Majesty's Government in the order of priority claims on the public purse in the immediate post-war period of three years.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I am afraid that it is not practicable to deal with this matter in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that these hopes may be dashed to the ground unless he will say what provision is possible for all the Bills envisaged in the Gracious Speech?

Sir J. Anderson: I always try to avoid raising undue hopes. It is the practice of the Government to make clear to the House as we go along what expenditure is involved in legislative projects which may be commended by the Government to Parliament.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the Government make clear how the expenditure is going to be met?

Sir J. Anderson: I hope we shall make that clear in due course.

Indian Troops (Expenses)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the expenses of Indian troops stationed in the United Kingdom are borne by His Majesty's Government or by the Government of India; and whether these expenses result in a corresponding reduction of the Indian sterling balances.

Sir J. Anderson: No Indian troops are stationed in the United Kingdom. The


second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Sir H. Williams: My right hon. Friend says that there are no Indian troops in this country; do they not come here every Thursday morning under the care of the hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth (Sir J. Lucas)? When we all know that there are units of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps in this country, how can my right hon. Friend make that statement which our own eyes see to be wrong?

Sir J. Anderson: I have given the information that was conveyed to me. I will make inquiry and if I am wrong I will tender an apology.

Sir H. Williams: If my right hon. Friend walks through the Lobby he must have seen these men.

Sir J. Anderson: I understand that the unit which was in this country has been sent back.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I saw them three days ago?

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the expenses of Indian troops stationed outside India and the United Kingdom are borne by His Majesty's Government or by the Government of India; and whether these expenses lead to a corresponding increase of this country's indebtedness towards the countries in which they are incurred.

Sir J. Anderson: Under the agreement referred to in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 14th November, 1944, His Majesty's Government meet the expenses of Indian troops employed outside India, less the normal cost, which is borne by the Government of India, of certain troops earmarked before the war for external defence. With regard to the second part of the Question, such expenditure, whether met by His Majesty's Government or by the Government of India, is, of course, one of the factors determining the level of sterling balances held by the country where the troops are stationed.

Christmas Bonuses (Income Tax)

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the confusion caused in the public mind by recent announcements concerning the liability to tax of Christmas gifts and bonuses in kind, cash and savings certificates, whether he will make a statement elucidating the position.

Sir J. Anderson: Christmas bonuses paid to employees are liable to Income Tax, whether payment is made in cash or in something such as savings certificates, which can be turned into cash. Where, however, an employer makes Christmas gifts of goods to his subordinate employees the value of the goods is not treated as taxable remuneration: and in cases where it has been customary for an employer to make such gifts in kind but, because of war conditions, he decides to substitute gifts of equivalent value in the form of savings certificates, savings stamps, National Savings gift tokens or direct credits to savings bank accounts of the employees, the value of the gifts so made is not treated for Income Tax purposes as income of the recipients.

Sir I. Albery: Did not the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion explain to the House that there were large contributions made in savings certificates, under arrangements which certain firms made, which were not subject to Income Tax? Has the procedure been changed?

Sir J. Anderson: There has been no change, but there has been a certain misunderstanding of statements that have been made, and I am glad of the opportunity of clearing the matter up in the comprehensive reply I have just given.

Mr. Woodburn: Are not these gifts encashable next day, should the recipients so desire?

Sir J. Anderson: Of course they are, but, as I have explained, this is in the nature of a very special concession of a limited character. If it were abused, one would have to consider withdrawing it.

Mr. Purbrick: Can these gifts in cash be deducted by the employer in respect of his Income Tax?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, in the same way as any other payments made to employees.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some businesses, especially family businesses, have been used to making presents, sometimes in the form of cash, to old and valued employees; and is it not hard if these are now to be charged with tax?

Sir J. Anderson: As I have explained in the answer, payments made in cash by way of Christmas bonus have always been regarded as liable to tax.

Commander King-Hall: Can my right hon. Friend explain why it is that the bonus paid consistently throughout the year is not subject to tax, but that when it becomes a Christmas present it is subject to tax?

Sir J. Anderson: I have no knowledge of bonuses paid throughout the year which are not liable to tax.

Commander King-Hall: Is it not a fact that the allowances made by firms to employees in order that they shall purchase War Savings Certificates at reduced rates, allowances which in some cases have risen to 50 per cent. of the cost of certificates, are bonuses payable throughout the year?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not aware that they are not liable to tax.

Mr. Bowles: Is the reply solely concerned with employees? If I were given a present by a grateful client, would that also be taxable?

War Savings Posters

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consult with those responsible for the War Savings Campaign and the Ministry of Works as responsible for the care of public monuments in London, in order to cease covering such historical monuments as Nelson's Column, the Marble Arch and similar places with poster hoardings and so to permit visitors to London to see these monuments, assuming that the war savings movement is now so established as to no longer require these forms of advertisement.

Sir J. Anderson: While sympathising with my hon. Friend's purpose which I trust may be attainable before very long, I am afraid that I cannot accept his assumption. It is still of national importance that the need for war savings

should receive the most effective possible publicity, and I hope that the National Savings Committee will continue to make full use of the facilities which they have been given for the purpose.

Sir R. Glyn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that those very vulgar posters which debase these monuments can in no way support a great national effort?

Sir J. Anderson: I have to judge by the success of the effort taken as a whole, which is very great.

Mr. Petherick: In those circumstances would my right hon. Friend cover the Albert Hall entirely with posters?

Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman at least try to find some good modern artists who would design posters which did not look like old-fashioned chocolate boxes or bad magazine covers?

National Capital Assets

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the national wealth, per head of the population, in 1913, 1938 and at the latest convenient date.

Sir J. Anderson: Assuming that my hon. Friend is referring to national capital assets, no official estimates are available.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that any figures he might be able to give would not express the real value of the national wealth per head owing to the depreciation in the purchasing power of the pound sterling; and will he take all steps he can to stop inflation?

Sir J. Anderson: There seem to be several points embedded in that question. I can only try to deal with the last one, the answer to which is in the affirmative.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Does not the Chancellor agree that most of the national wealth, as Mr. Gladstone said, should be allowed to fructify in the pockets of the people?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (RATE OF EXCHANGE)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can take steps to alter the Anglo-French rate of


exchange so that the pound sterling, when changed into francs, may have the same purchasing power in France as in Britain.

Sir J. Anderson: Under present conditions prices in France must vary a great deal as between different parts of the country, and speaking with some personal knowledge, I do not think it would be easy to make any reliable calculation on the purchasing power of the pound sterling when converted into francs. I do not regard the existing rate of exchange as interposing obstacles in the way of Anglo-French trade, and taking all the relevant factors of the situation into account I would not think it right for His Majesty's' Government to suggest an alteration in the rate.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the present disparity is causing great injustice to our men in the Forces and also tends to create a black market? Will he do all he can—I realise the difficulties—to bring the exchange as near as possible into parity?

Sir J. Anderson: With great respect, I would venture to deprecate any attempt to pursue such a matter by way of Question and answer. Unless the wording is very carefully considered, the answers, and for that matter, the Questions, are very liable to lead to undesirable forms of speculation.

Sir W. Smithers: I want to stop that.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (SALES, GLASGOW)

Commander King-Hall: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will establish a branch of the Stationery Office in Glasgow, so that the inhabitants of that city may share with those of London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Cardiff and Belfast, the advantages of easily obtaining HANSARD and other Government publications.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): The Stationery Office has arrangements with a principal bookseller in Glasgow to give special attention to the sale of Government publications, and other leading booksellers in the city are also large customers for official publica-

tions. The establishment of a special sale office in Glasgow would involve a use of man-power which could not at present be justified by increased sales or increased convenience to the public.

Commander King-Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the agency he refers to is a cellar, that in that cellar there are no current issues of Government publications, and that, when one goes there, they tell one that they will write to Edinburgh for them, and that they may arrive in two days' time?

Mr. Peake: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the book-sellers of Glasgow are very enterprising people, and can obtain supplies very quickly from the neighbouring city of Edinburgh.

Commander King-Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one cannot get the previous day's HANSARD in Glasgow?

Mr. Neil Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the address of that bookseller?

Mr. Peake: Messrs. J. Smith's, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow.

Oral Answers to Questions — COKE DISTRIBUTION, NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Dermot Campbell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the restrictions on the supply of coke to private residences are the same for Northern Ireland as for other parts of the United Kingdom.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Restrictions on the supply of coke (and coal) to domestic premises in this country are imposed under the Coal Distribution Order, 1943, which does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Government of Northern Ireland are responsible for the control of distribution of al fuel supplies in that country, and I understand that disposal by local producers and importers of coke is controlled under direction from the Ministry of Commerce. I am informed that at present no coke is being supplied to domestic premises in Northern Ireland; supplies are very short and are required for high priority purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Exports (Lend-Lease Arrangements)

Captain Duncan: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will give a representative list of the manufactured articles for civilian use which enter into export trade, the shipment of which we shall cease to receive under Lend-Lease after 1st January, 1945;
(2) whether he will give, for the benefit of manufacturers, a complete list of the raw and semi-fabricated materials which this country will cease receiving under Lend-Lease after 1st January, 1945.

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I assume that the purpose of the Questions is to secure guidance for manufacturers as to the extent to which restrictions on export will continue. The publication of the lists asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend would, however, be definitely misleading, because, apart entirely from Lend-Lease considerations, the availability in this country of man-power, manufacturing capacity and materials must be taken into account before the export of any particular class of goods can be licensed. Restrictions on export will be relaxed as conditions permit, and announcements will be made from time to time. For the present, manufacturers should consult the Board of Trade for information on any particular class of goods, subject to export licensing, with which they are concerned.

Captain Duncan: Is the Minister aware that unless manufacturers know which goods are to be exempt from Lend-Lease restrictions they will not be able to make their plans? Is he not asking for an arrangement which will be very undesirable, and impossible to work from the point of view of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Johnstone: The exact range of raw materials which are to be exempt from Lend-Lease considerations is not yet known. Apart from that, it is hoped to issue an Order very shortly containing a list of goods which no longer will be subject to export control. Although this list cannot be long or of great importance at the moment, it is hoped to issue further Orders removing goods from licensing control as and when conditions permit.

Captain Duncan: When will the first list be issued?

Mr. Johnstone: I could not quite say.

Liberated Countries (Trading with the Enemy Act)

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that by virtue of S.R. & O., 1034, of 1943, 22nd July, every resident of liberated France, Belgium and Holland is still described as an enemy for the purposes of the Trading with the Enemy Act regardless of nationality; and if he will now consider abolishing the use of this description in respect of such of these persons who are either British or nationals of Allied States.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): No, Sir. The position is not as represented in the Question. Communication by post is now established between residents in this country and those in some of the liberated territories which would be illegal were the latter still considered to be enemies. Regulation S.R. & O. 1034 of 1943 relates to property in the United Kingdom and is designed to facilitate its orderly release or disposal.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: As the continuance of these Orders represents a barrier to the resumption of trade among the United Nations, could the Minister indicate whether there is any likelihood of an early modification of them?

Captain Waterhouse: No, I know of no likelihood of an early modification of them, but the Board of Trade has this matter under review, is in contact with the Governments concerned and will take the necessary action at the earliest possible moment.

Sheets and Blankets

Mr. Storey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether as the people with special needs to whom priority dockets for the purchase of sheets and blankets are issued do not include those whose stocks were, even before the war, at a low level owing to long unemployment, he will amend the conditions governing the issue of priority dockets so as to include such people.

Captain Waterhouse: While sympathetic with the purpose of my hon.


Friend's proposal, I fear that for reasons both of supply and administration I cannot extend the conditions governing the grant of priority dockets in the manner suggested.

Mr. Storey: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in the households described in the Question, the Home Guard's overcoat is the principal bed covering? Will he not reconsider his refusal, in the light of that fact?

Captain Waterhouse: I am well aware that there is a very grave shortage of bed coverings throughout the country but I am also well aware that there are many categories of people, other than those mentioned in the Question, who are equally short.

Exporters (Paper Allocation)

Sir L. Lyle: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that sufficient paper exists for our export trade for distribution in the foreign countries where we hope to build up markets; and whether he will, for that purpose, restrict the amount of paper now used for ephemeral publications.

Captain Waterhouse: The supply of paper is lamentably short, and nobody is getting as much as he needs. I am in close touch with my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Production and the Minister of Supply, and when supplies improve exporters, as well as other users, will benefit. Meanwhile, I should not feel justified in suggesting that paper might properly be diverted from any particular class of publication.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not scandalous that certain publications which are in evidence on the bookstalls and are yellow, both in colour and inside, should be given all those possibilities of production, while educational and business publications are not so permitted?

Captain Waterhouse: The Board of Trade has many duties, but to censor publications is not one of them.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the matter cannot be so lightly dismissed, and, in fact, cannot be dismissed at all?

International Cartels

Major Procter: asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is intended

to introduce the Bill to enable inquiries to be conducted into the operation of cartels.

Captain Waterhouse: I would refer my hon and gallant Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on this subject in the Debate on the Address on 6th December.

Share Certificates (Loss by Enemy Action)

Lady Apsley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in cases where the loss of share certificates is due to enemy action, he can reduce the present costly procedure of obtaining replacement by indemnity.

Captain Waterhouse: I am assured that companies in general are prepared to relax their usual requirements in suitable cases, and I, therefore, do not think any special action is needed.

Cinematograph Film Industry (Report)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take on the report submitted to him by a committee concerning tendencies to monopoly in the Cinematograph Film Industry.

Captain, Waterhouse: My right hon. Friend is awaiting the views of the various sections of the film industry on this report.

Mr. Bellenger: And then, after the reception of those views, will it be possible for the President of the Board of Trade to give this House a considered statement as to the action he proposes to take?

Captain Waterhouse: No doubt an opportunity will arise, after my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity of consideration, of conveying to the House the results of his consideration.

Officers' Coats (Coupons)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many clothing coupons it is necessary for serving officers to surrender for a trench coat, without detachable lining, and a raincoat, respectively; and what is the difference between these two garments.

Captain Waterhouse: The number of coupons required for an officer's trench coat without detachable lining is 30 and for an officer's raincoat is 22. Roughly


speaking, the difference between them is that a trench coat is double-breasted, fully interlined, has a wide skirt and usually has an extra outer piece on the shoulders. A raincoat is usually single-breasted, not interlined, narrower in the skirt, and lacks the outer piece on the shoulders. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Proofed Garments (Restrictions) Order, 1944, which gives descriptions of these garments.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department not consider that while officers stationed in Britain are very generously treated in the matter of coupons for clothing, and other garments that they require, officers abroad require every attention in the matter of finding garments, which are very scarce in certain directions?

Clogs, Lancashire

Mr. Tinker: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there is a shortage of clogs worn by the miners in Lancashire and of the material to repair them; and will he examine this matter to see if he will take steps to improve the supplies.

Captain Waterhouse: No, Sir, I am not aware of any general shortage of clogs or clog soles, but I am making inquiries into the position in Lancashire and will communicate with my hon. Friend when I have received a report.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire why there is such a shortage of clogs and the materials with which to repair them in various parts of Lancashire? Is it not a fact that men have to stay away from their work because their clogs cannot be soled properly? I would like the Minister to make a full inquiry in order to see whether there is any ground for the shortage.

Captain Waterhouse: I should be very glad to have any information the hon. Member can give me. The production of clogs has been very materially increased, and we have had no complaints.

Mr. Tinker: If I give him particulars of a specific case, will he look into it?

Captain Waterhouse: I will have inquiries made in the matter.

Mr. T. Brown: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, prior to and during the early years of the war, miners always had an extra pair of clogs, what is called the spare pair, but that, owing to rationing restrictions, these have not been replaced? Would it not be a step in the right direction to consider ways and means of again providing miners with a spare pair?

Captain Waterhouse: I am afraid that miners, like other sections of the community, have had to forgo many things which they had before the war. We are doing our best to increase supplies, subject to labour and materials, which in this matter are dreadfully short.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-WAR RESERVE POLICE, ARMED FORCES (RELEASE)

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Minister of Labour whether the services of Metropolitan War Reserve Police constables, now in the Forces, will be taken into consideration in assessing qualifications for demobilisation.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): No, Sir.

Mr. Hammersley: Does it not appear unjust that these officers, whose services were so much required, should have no consideration given to their service?

Mr. Tomlinson: The difficulty is not in recognising their services, but in distinguishing between theirs and other services of a similar kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY COMMISSION (TRADE PRICES)

Mr. Jackson: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what were the prices agreed upon between the Forestry Commissioners and the trade association for surplus nursery stock and the quantities of trees supplied to purchasers on the instructions of the member firms of the trade association for the years 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943.

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): Sales made to the trade associations during the seasons 1940/41 and 1941/42 were at prices fixed by the Forestry Commissioners. For the seasons


1942/43 and 1943/44 a considerable number of prices was agreed. It was also agreed that these prices were not for publication, but I shall be happy to hand a schedule to the hon. Member for his own information.
Sales to the trade associations' members during the years quoted were:


Season.
Seedlings (Thousands).
Transplants (Thousands).


1940/41
—
259


1941/42
59
100


1942/43
2,259
1,477


1943/44
3,350
1,996


of which the following were supplied direct to purchasers on the instructions of the member firms of the trade associations:


Season.
Seedlings (Thousands).
Transplants (Thousands).


1940/41
—
135


1941/42
—
—


1942/43
182
422


1943/44
855
348

Mr. Storey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when those prices were discussed between the nursery trade and the Forestry Commission, and whether representatives of the consumers were present?

Mr. Jackson: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the date on which the revised prices for 1944 were agreed upon by the Forestry Commissioners with the Trades Association for surplus nursery stock.

Sir G. Courthope: The date of the agreement referred to was 19th October last.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Tubular Scaffolding (Disposal)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Supply how his Department proposes to dispose of the tubular scaffolding which was used for the protection of the beaches in certain coastal areas.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): Tubular scaffolding used for the protection of beaches will be disposed of by the War Office, either as scrap or for use in agriculture. Such scaffolding does not conform with British standard specifications, and its use for ordinary scaffolding construction might be dangerous. The

Ministry of Supply have agreed to this, and are arranging for the war agricultural executive committees to acquire, on behalf of farmers, any tubular scaffolding they want for genuine agricultural purposes.

Major Taylor: In the first place I addressed this Question to the War Office. I am now told that the War Office will be responsible for disposing of this scaffolding. Will the general public be given an opportunity to buy this scaffolding?

Mr. Wilmot: The Question is answered on behalf of the Ministry of Supply, as they have an overriding responsibility. Prospective buyers of this scaffolding should apply to the Director of Salvage at the War Office, or, if it is wanted for agricultural purposes, to the local war agricultural executive committees.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that much of this scaffolding is embedded in rocks on the sea bottom? Will that be removed by the local authorities, or will the Government be responsible for its removal?

Mr. Wilmot: Questions on the method of removal had better be put down to the War Office.

British Steel (Price)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Supply what arrangements have been made for British steel to be offered to British or foreign contractors at the same price as American steel.

Mr. Wilmot: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) on 6th December, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to take this matter seriously? In the midst of the war, America is competing with us and cutting the price by sheer dumping methods. What is the use of talking about post-war agreements if we cannot agree with each other during the war?

Mr. Wilmot: Steel prices are only one of the factors in the cost of finished manufactured goods, and they, in their turn, depend on the cost of a number of other materials. The matter is having continuous attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give an assurance that, when naval, military and R.A.F. personnel are killed or wounded as the result of civil strife in occupied or liberated countries, they or their dependants will enjoy the same pension rights as if they had been killed on active service against the enemy.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The answer is "Yes, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — RECONDITIONED HOUSES (RURAL AREAS)

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been reconditioned in England and Wales under the Rural Housing Acts by county and district councils, respectively; and what evidence he has of their intention to make the fullest use of their powers in improving living conditions in the rural areas.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): The number of rural cottages reconditioned in England and Wales with financial assistance from county and district councils, including cases where work is in progress, is 15,605 and 7,579 respectively. The readiness with which these authorities have collaborated in setting up the joint county committees recommended by the Hobhouse Sub-Committee as a preliminary step in improving administration, is encouraging evidence of their intention to do everythng in their power to improve rural living conditions.

CHANNEL ISLANDS (SUPPLIES)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I wish, with permission, to make a statement on the question of supplies for the Channel Islands. It is, of course, a recognised principle of international law that an Occupying Power is responsible for supplies to the civil population. Nevertheless, in view of the reports received as to the conditions in the Islands, His Majesty's Government have decided that it would be right to supplement the rations of the civil population of the Islands by sending supplies of medicines, soap, and food parcels on the basis of

those supplied to prisoners of war. The German Government have now agreed to this procedure, and have granted a safe conduct to the ship which will convey these supplies to the Islands. Final arrangements for the departure of the ship have not yet been completed, but His Majesty's Government have every reason to believe that she will be ready to sail within the next few days.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can arrangements be made for the ship to take in mail and to bring mail out of the Islands?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure that that can be arranged at this stage. We will do everything we can, but we thought that the urgent thing was to get food in.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Is a representative of the Red Cross accompanying this ship, to see what arrangements will be necessary in the future for medical stores?

Mr. Morrison: We will take note of that point, but, if the House will forgive me, I do not want to go too far into detail at the moment.

Mr. Frankel: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to think that the distribution of these stores will be satisfactory?

Mr. Morrison: We have reasonable cause to believe that that will be taken care of.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Bowles: On Business, might I ask whether the Leader of the House has any idea how long the first Order of the Day will take?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member knows that we are on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Bowles: But will the Debate on that stop at 6 o'clock?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

SELECTION (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) (SCOTLAND) (PANEL)

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew reported from the Committee of Selection, That in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, they had selected the following Twenty Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this


House to act as Commissioners: Mr. Francis Beattie, Mr. Buchanan, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Erskine-Hill, Sir Henry Fildes, Sir Edmund Findlay, Sir John Graham Kerr, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. McKie, Mr. Joseph Maclay, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Hubbard, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Major Neven-Spence, Lord William Scott, Captain Shaw, Sir R. W. Smith, Mr. Snadden, Mr. Henderson Stewart and Mr. Watson.

SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL)

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew further reported from the Committee, That they had selected the following Twenty-two Members to be the Panel of Members appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order 111: Mr. Broad, Lieut.-Colonel Boles, Mr. Dermot Campbell, Major Sir George Davies, Mr. Walter Green, Mr. Gretton, Mr. Guy, Sir George Hume, Mr. Jewson, Major Lloyd, Mr. Loftus, Mr. Logan, Major Mott-Radclyffe, Mr. Pickthorn, Mr. Reakes, Sir Stanley Reed, Mr. Wilfrid Roberts, Admiral Sir Percy Royds, Sir Alexander Russell, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter, Mr. Henry White and Major York.

SELECTION (STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE) (PANEL)

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew further reported from the Committee, That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Panel of Members appointed to serve on the Select Committee on Standing Orders, under Standing Order 98: Lieut.-Colonel Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Boles, Mr. Frankel, Sir Austin Hudson, Sir Hadyn Jones, Major Leighton, Sir Frank Sanderson and Mr. Tinker.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)

Resolution reported from the Committee of Selection: That after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.

Report to lie upon the Table.

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

First Report from the Select Committee, brought up and read as follows: The Committee have considered the Purchase Tax (Alteration of Rates) (No. 2) Order, 1944 (S.R. & O., 1944, No. 868) presented on 29th November, and the draft of the Cinematograph Films (Labour Costs Amendment) Order, 1944, presented on 12th December, and are of the opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to them, on any of the grounds set out in the terms of reference of the Committee.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (ACCOMMODATION)

That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to inquire into the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster and to report thereon with such recommendations as appear to them desirable.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL

In pursuance of Standing Order No. 80 (4), Mr. SPEAKER has nominated Mr. Bellenger, Captain Cobb, Major Sir Cyril Entwistle, Mr. Foster, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Mr. Jewson, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Sir Adam Maitland, Sir Douglas Thomson, Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. McLean Watson to be the Chairmen's Panel during this Session.

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[Eighth Day]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th November]:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament"—[Captain Sidney.]

Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — BURMA

12.3 p.m.

Mr. De Chair: After the somewhat stormy Debate last Friday, when the House discussed the unfortunate events which occur when Greek meets Greek in open feud, the House has met in a calmer mood, to contemplate the more distant horizon of Burma. Here the British 14th Army are fighting with a gallantry and an endurance which have won the admiration of all sections of this House, irrespective of party. This is no forgotton Army. This is the shield behind which India has enjoyed the Imperial prerogative of successful defence against aggression, and the shield behind which British power has advanced once more to the banks of the Irrawaddy. I believe that even the waterlogged soldiers of the Western front would concede that the jungle has imposed conditions upon the soldiers in Burma more exacting than British soldiers have had to face in any other part of the world during any period of the war. This is certainly no forgotten Army. The deeds of this Army will be remembered so long as tales of fortitude appeal to human ears. The House has a


keen interest in the welfare of the 14th Army, and is waiting with some impatience the report of Lord Munster's visit to the Burma Front. All we know about Lord Munster's views upon the subject is that he shares the 14th Army's very strong views about the soya bean sausage which they have been obliged to eat. I wonder whether it is conceivable that the indiscreet admission to this effect can have had anything to do with his hurried transfer to the cells of the Home Office, where, I understand, he is now languishing. However, in the absence of his report, I do not want to discuss the conditions of the 14th Army but to discuss rather the Imperial problem which is posed by the liberation of this country from the Japanese. For here is a country which is being liberated, part by part, from the Japanese yoke, and as yet no pronouncement has come from His Majesty's Government as to the administration which is to follow that re-occupation or as to the constitutional arrangements which are eventually to be made for it. What sort of Burma are the men of the 14th Army fighting for? They have the right to know and I hope that His Majesty's Government will make their views clear upon that point.
First, when we discuss Burma, it is important to realise that there are, in fact, two entirely separate Burmas with which we have to deal. The charge was laid upon us when the British had to retreat from Burma in 1941 and 1942, that the Burmese of the plains, the Buddhist Burmese, made no lively resistance to the Japanese comparable to the guerilla movements in other parts of the world and that they slipped with something like alacrity from British to Japanese rule. These Burmese of the plains had no weapons and no terrain suitable for guerilla warfare. The shock of the Japanese invasion stunned them. They saw the British withdraw and in these condition they could have put up no effective resistance to the Japanese, and so I do not think that any useful deduction is to be made, or any charge to be levelled against us on Imperial grounds that the Burmese of the plains made no effective guerilla resistance to the Japanese. But 40 per cent. of the country we know as Burma consists of the frontier areas where the hill tribes, such as the Karens, the Chins, the Kachins, Nagas and others live. These tribes, too, fought with us and they

fought most gallantly throughout our war against the Japanese. Unfortunately, their part is all too little known owing to the cloak of secrecy which has made it necessary to refrain from publishing the activities of these tribal Allies of ours. Many exploits of individual heroism have been pushed beenath the blotter of military censorship.
Possibly the House will be interested in the achievement of guerilla bands fighting on our side. Few people in the House probably realise that a large part of General Alexander's Army during retreat was saved from encirclement by the gallant stand of a small band of 150 Karens, who fought for 48 hours to hold a vital point, so that partisans further back could carry out demolitions which prevented the Japanese from encircling our Forces, which not only saved a large part of our Army under General Slim, but a large portion of General Stillwell's Army. They fought for 48 hours at a cost of over 60 per cent. of casualties. They had to watch one of their captured Karen leaders being beheaded by the Japanese. They fought with rifles, and with only 50 rounds of ammunition apiece, against a Japanese motorised battalion armed with guns and all modern equipment. Does the history of partisan warfare in Europe hold any instance of more determined resistance against aggression. It is not possibly realised that the Kachins denied to the Japanese the use of those frontier air strips at Fort Hertz which, if the Japanese had captured them, would have enabled them to interfere with the air service over "The Hump" into China on which the survival of China into the seventh year of her war with Japan may well have depended.
These Kachins also have provided valuable help to our British soldiers during the expeditions through the jungles into Burma. In particular, when General Wingate's first expedition penetrated into Burma, the assistance which they received from the Kachin villagers brought upon these villagers terrible retribution from the Japanese, and when I say, "terrible retribution from the Japanese," I leave the House to imagine what I mean by that. Many English and American airmen who have baled out over the jungle in Burma owe their lives to those friendly Kachin villagers who have sent


them back into our lines. The Chin tribes, under a handful of British civilians of the Burma Frontier Service, kept a front of 250 miles in being for 18 months and so screened from the curious eyes of the Japanese our military weakness until our forces could be mobilised to reconquer that part of the frontier and also to open up the land connection with the Burma Road, which was the intention of Allied strategy in that part of the world.
I hope that this will refute the charge made that we have failed to secure the loyalty of any part of Burma and that we lacked Allies prepared to fight on with us. When the inner history of this struggle is known, it will be seen that there has been a large contribution to partisan warfare, with exploits equal to those of the partisans in Yugoslavia, Poland or Russia or in any other part of the world who have been fighting Axis domination. Anyone who has knowledge of these frontier areas knows that they were ruled by their own chiefs under the ultimate responsibility of the British Governor. They were proud of their position in the British Empire. They were warlike, and when war came they were prepared to help us in our struggle against the Japanese. Some reorganisation of the administration of these frontier areas will be necessary when we reconquer Burma in order to bring the frontier tribes more directly under the civil authority of the Governor and less under the control of a military secretariat and to have the administration more in the hands of men in the Burma Frontier Service who actually know all the tribes themselves. But apart from that, no real Imperial problem is posed by the re-occupation of the frontier areas, but the re-occupation of the other part of Burma—the Burma occupied by the Buddhist Burmese themselves—poses the most significant Imperial problem we shall have to face in the immediate years after the war. We are often told in Debates on foreign affairs in this House that there must be a principle underlying our foreign policy and with that sentiment I entirely agree. But there must be a principle no less underlying our conduct of Imperial affairs. I have come to the conclusion that there are only two practical forms of Imperialism, either benevolent despotism or Imperial partnership. Many who regret the pledges which we have given

to Burma and other parts of the Empire to confer upon them self-government are hankering after the days and the ways of the Great Mogul. An inevitable transition has been going on during the last half century from the position of absolute power under which we held large areas of the Empire to a new Imperial partnership. It is inevitable, and whether we like it or not, and whether we consider that all parts of the Empire which have been promised self-government are fit for it or not, that is our declared intention, that all these parts of the Empire which have not yet attained Dominion status shall ultimately be brought into partnership with the Mother Country, and we are pledged in the case of Burma to give self-government to that country as soon as practicable.
It is difficult to understand any current problem unless one has some appreciation of the historical circumstances which have led up to it, and in considering the problem of Burma it is particularly important to realise the circumstances in which we conquered that country. While it is true that the first and second Burma wars, under which we conquered first of all Arakan and Tenasserim, and then the rich province of Pegu, with the Port of Rangoon, were provoked by the Burmese themselves, the third Burma war, in 1885, under which we conquered Upper Burma and Mandalay, was fought by us for reasons of world power politics. From our point of view the reigning King, Thibaw, was an unsatisfactory monarch and unsatisfactory neighbour, who had come to the throne by murdering his brothers, according to the oriental custom of that country in those days. Also, he had carried repressive measures against British residents in his kingdom; but we had allowed all these things to pass without interference until we were satisfied, in 1885, that the French meant to annex the country from French Indo-China, and we then hurried in, with almost indecent haste, in order to get Upper Burma. History has a long memory, and I believe that we have had to pay for this inconvenient fact. As one of my Burmese friends said, it would not have mattered so much if this had happened 100 years ago, but it happened in 1885, within the memory of living men. There are Burmese alive to-day who saw their King carried away from the Golden Palace of Mandalay in an ox-cart by the British,


and from that fact springs much of the suspicion with which our motives are regarded in that part of the Empire. Let nobody underestimate the extent of this suspicion of our motives. Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, the present Governor-General, made a remarkable admission when he was speaking in London last year. He said:
I do not pretend to be skilled in Far Eastern affairs. I have only seen Great Britain in eclipse there, but one thing I can say with some surety, and that is that neither our word nor our intentions are trusted in that part of the globe.
That is a remarkable statement for a Governor to have to make about the area of the Empire which he is sent out to administer.
Whence arises this distrust of our motives, this intense nationalism which is to be found in Burma? I believe that it is a result of the growth of nationalism throughout Asia during the last half-century, which has manifested itself in many lands. When these peoples were conquered by European Powers they realised the overwhelming power of western nations. But then in 1904 they saw the Japanese overthrow the Russians, they also saw the Turks overthrow the Greeks, and gradually an idea was born in their minds that Asiatic Powers could stand up against European nations. At the same time, from 1885 onwards, Burma was administered as part of our Indian Empire. In India we had introduced the study of English, with the result that the whole spirit of freedom and liberty which is instinct in English literature became at once the study of masses of Asiatic people in India and Burma. This spirit of liberty, which is instinct in all our literature, was bound to have its effect, and lead to a demand for the same freedom and self-government for the Asiastic people.
In 1935 Burma was separated from India. Everybody who has studied this matter will realise that this was in itself a beneficial thing. Burma resented the connection with India, resented paying taxes to support wars on the North-West Frontier of India, and for other things, and, indeed, it is unfortunate that the separation from India has not been a little more complete than it has been. It is inevitable that a certain suspicion arises in the minds of the Burmese about whether separation is complete when they

find the Secretaryship of State for Burma held by the same individual as the Secretary of Stateship for India and the Under-Secretary of Stateship for Burma held by the same individual as the Under-Secretary of Stateship for India, with the Burma Office "housed," as the Prime Minister naïvely put it, in the India Office. In fact, it is little more than a bicycle shed at the back of the building. It is to be hoped that in future the affairs of Burma will be made very much more distinct from those of India than they have been. But in spite of separation from India in 1935 Burma's constitutional development has been very much tied up with that of India. What are the pledges which govern our future policy? Let me first quote a pledge given as recently as last year by the Secretary of State. I am sorry if I get my dates a little confused. First I would like to quote a pledge given by the present Secretary of State for Burma in November, 1941, when he said:
This country is pledged to help Burma to attain Dominion status as speedily and as fully as may be possible.
The House will notice that in that pledge there is no promise of a particular date, but in 1931 the Secretary of State for India had stated:
That the prospects of Constitutional advance held out to Burma as part of British India will not be prejudiced. … The constitutional objective after separation will remain the progressive realisation of responsible Government in Burma as an integral part of the Empire.
But the situation has been considerably affected during the war by the visit of Sir Stafford Cripps to India. He has pledged on behalf of His Majesty's Government that India shall have a constituent assembly and have Dominion status at the conclusion of hostilities if she can agree upon it. Burmese opinion regards that Cripps pledge to India as binding His Majesty's Government in regard to Burma as well, and I hope that when the Secretary of State replies to this discussion he will be able to explain where His Majesty's Government stand in regard to the Cripps pledge in its relation to India, because until that point is cleared up it is difficult to know to what extent we arc pledged to give self-government to Burma the moment the war is over.
Some hon. Members will be aware that a number of Conservative Members have


for the past year been studying this problem of Burma's future and have recently issued a report containing certain recommendations. We recognise the pledge to give Burma dominion status, and we only provide that in order to prevent Burma ever again being overrun by aggression from outside, there should be a treaty providing for defence bases and for foreign policy, and a commercial treaty to provide for the security of British firms trading in Burma and to help with its rehabilitation. We felt that there must, in the nature of the circumstances of Burma's reoccupation after a devastating war in which all the communications and much of the plant in the country have been destroyed, be a period of physical reconstruction, and we felt that while on the one hand Burma's nationalism would be strained unless a fixed period were put to that we could not see how the reconstruction of the country and the conditions necessary for the launching of Dominion status successfully could take place in less than a period of six years.
We were bitterly assailed by "The Times" newspaper in a leader which must have come as a shock to anyone who still cherishes the illusion that "The Times" is the most conservative of newspapers, for not recommending the grant of Dominion status immediately upon the conclusion of hostilities, and the Cripps pledge to India was quoted to support the reasons for doing this. I should like to point out one thing which "The Times" and other people who have considered the matter have overlooked, and that is that the Cripps pledge provides only, as I understand, that a constituent assembly shall be set up in India after the conclusion of the war with Japan to frame the Dominion constitution. The end of the war with Japan may be a very different date from the end of the occupation of Burma by the Japanese, and our recommendation was merely that from the outset of the period of the reoccupation of Burma by the British there should be this fixed period of reconstruction, which may be very much before the end of the war with Japan itself. Secondly, we provided that before the end of that period of reconstruction a draft constitution should be submitted to a representative assembly, whereas in India the constituent assembly is to meet only after the conclusion of hostilities with Japan

and might very well take a year or two to reach a definite conclusion in a country where Hindu and Moslem have almost irreconcilable interests.
Therefore, I do not think that this suggestion that Burma will have to have a period of fixed reconstruction during which the constitution will be prepared by the Governor assisted by a council of representative Burmese will necessarily mean that Burma will, in fact, achieve Dominion status very much later, if later at all, than will be the case in India. I was interested in the reaction of the Burmese Refugees Association in Simla to these proposals. They have stated that they do not think the period of reconstruction "should be extended beyond any period of years strictly necessary for the re-establishment of orderly administration and the inauguration of essential measures of reconstruction." With that sentiment I would agree, and it is merely a matter of opinion how long the period of reconstruction will have to be, but it will depend to a large extent on the circumstances which we find when we return.
All I would say in conclusion is that I hope His Majesty's Government will make an early declaration of what their intentions are, because the uncertainty as to the future constitution is a gap in our political warfare against the Japanese in Burma. As soon as a declaration is made by the Government as to what the constitution will be, this propaganda should be put across to the Burmese who are living under Japanese rule. We do not know a great deal of what has been happening in Burma, but we know that the Japanese have been very astute in fanning the flames of Burmese nationalism. They have given Burma the outward appearance of independence while retaining the tommy gun in the background, and that may be a much more intelligent appreciation of oriental psychology than we have shown in the past, for however far the 1935 constitution went in fact towards granting a measure of self-government to Burma it failed to convince the Burmese that they were getting independence, and Burma is not the only Asiatic country where "face" is as of great importance, if not more importance, than reality. In 1945, we hope, we shall be returning to Burma as liberators—not as conquerors as in 1885—and it is in this spirit of liberation that I hope that the problem of the


future of Burma will be approached. If both sides show a mutual understanding of the particular difficulties of each other I believe that this Dominion of Burma, when it comes into operation, will be able to open up a new chapter in our relations with Burma and dissipate many of the misunderstandings which impaired our administration of the country in the past. It is not too much to hope that, perhaps, if our liberation proceeds swiftly, Burma may be the first Asiatic country to become a Dominion of the British Empire and a contented member of the self-governing Commonwealth of Nations.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Shephard: It is ten years since this House debated Burma—I have turned it up and find that it was in December, 1934—although we have had frequent Debates on Colonial affairs and on India. This Debate will make the Burmese realise that we are mindful of their interests. We, in this House, should know a good deal more about Burma than we do. With her strong national aspirations and outlook she will need our understanding. My hon. Friend, the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair), has spoken about the constitutional issue, and I want to add a word or two to what he said.
I do not think we need be too critical of our treatment of Burma before the war. She had a greater measure of self-government than any other part of the British Empire, with the exception of the self-governing Dominions, and the Ministers had the administration of all services in their hands. We tried to run the country as liberally as possible. But Burma wants self-government, and she wants it as soon as the country is liberated. When U. Saw came over to this country in 1941 he hoped to extract a promise from His Majesty's Government to that effect. His Majesty's Government were not prepared to accede; all they were prepared to give was an assurance that when the war had been brought to a victorious end they would be willing to enter into discussions.
I came across a ballad the other day called "A Balland of Yea and Nay." I will read one or two of its verses. It started off:
U. Saw is come from the Burmese land the British Crown to greet,
And laid the case of the Burman race at the Empire's judgment seat;

They held debate on her post-war state between the day and the day,
Then the Lords of Law answered Hon. U. Saw and their answer was yea and nay.
U. Saw has left the judgment hall and called the Press to his side.
He said: 'I came in my people's name, but I go dissatisfied.
Ye all have heard Great Britain's word in the Charter signed at sea.
The world must wait for Article Eight, but what about Article Three?
I ha' urged the case of the Burman race, but the Crown does not respond.'
'Pipe down, pipe down' cries Amery Sahib; 'Our word is as good as our bond.'
And the last verse goes:
Ye may find the track of the morning mist, ye may run the fawn off its feet,
Or ever ye gain a promise plain from the Empire's judgment seat.
They ha' held debate on the Burman State, between the day and the day;
The Lords of Law sat on U. Saw and the answer was yea and nay.
I do not think that a policy of "Yea and Nay" will be good enough for the future, and I ask my right hon. Friend, when he replies to this Debate, to try to give some assurance that His Majesty's Government are prepared to grant self-government to Burma within a fixed period of time. This is an issue which calls for a bold and imaginative approach, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of what the Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, said in 1942 when he addressed the East Indian Association. He said:
Politically minded Burmans and indeed many foreign countries are wondering just what our intentions towards Burma are. Do we really mean to lead them on to that goal of self-government, or have we some reservation at the back of our minds which will mean that self-goverment will always be round the corner and never an accomplished fact. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by being perfectly explicit as to our intentions.
I think it would be appropriate in this Debate to refer to the liberation of Burma. Very shortly, our troops will be making contact with the Burmese people—I do not mean with the hill tribes, but with the Burmese people proper—and I want to remove the impression which prevails in some quarters—not only in this country, but also in America—as to the part played by the Burmese


during the Japanese invasion. It is perfectly true that General Alexander—as he then was—said:
The local population as a whole appear to be in active support of the enemy.
But it must be remembered that as we retreated through Burma the gaols were opened and the prisoners were released and among those prisoners were a good many murderers and a good many dacoits and, naturally, it might appear that the population was hostile to our troops.
The Governor himself has quoted a figure of 4,000 as being definitely hostile and actively supporting the enemy, but out of a population of 16,000,000 that is not a very large number. The fact that we were able to extricate ourselves hardly bears out that the people were hostile. I would like to quote what the Governor said on this question:
I am not going to pretend that no Burmese fell to the blandishments of the Japs, even to the extent of taking up arms against us. Some did, but they represented a minute proportion of the Burmese people, and it is quite unjust to brand Burma as a country of traitors, seething with hostility to the British. Had they been really hostile not a single British official would have got out alive. As it was, I do not know of a single case of a civilian official being molested whilst going about his ordinary business unescorted and alone.
I hope that statement will receive wide publicity, both with our troops fighting in Burma and with the people in this country. We shall have no lack of friends when we return. Despite the outward symbols of independence, there is no reason to suppose that the Burmese have any love for the Japs, who have behaved in a high handed manner towards them. They have heaped indignities on the priests; the women have suffered cruelly at their hands, while on the economic side, there have been no exports, Paddy prices have dropped, inflation is rife, there have been no imports, and the people are eking out a bare existence.
If I may, I want to turn for a minute or two to the economic structure of the country. By Asiatic comparisons, the standard of living in Burma is very high, and although the economy of Burma must rest, in the main, on her rice crop, of which she exported before the war something in the nature of £16,000,000 a year. Such industries as she has—oil, timber and metals—account for more than half

her exports, and that is the reason why her standard of living is higher than in many other Asiatic countries. I believe that standard is capable of improvement, and although Burma will never become industrialised having no proved coal or iron, there is room for secondary industries such as furniture, paint and many of the goods she actually imports, but the great weakness of the economic structure of the country is the fact that the Burmese people have not, in the past, taken any part in commerce or industry. Whether they can be persuaded to in the future, I do not know, but there is always the danger that where a country, commercially and industrially, is run by foreigners, a charge of exploitation will, sooner or later, be made, and I would suggest that all foreign firms, and the Burmese Government, should encourage the Burmese people, by all the means in their power, to play their part in the economic structure of their country. It is not a healthy situation, and it ill-accords with self-government.
My last point concerns the question of compensation for loss of property, equipment, commodities and materials. In January, 1942, the Under-Secretary of State for War made the following statement in this House:
The 'scorched earth policy' has been, and will continue to be, pursued in the Far East to the maximum extent that is practicable. The denial of resources to the enemy has long been the policy of His Majesty's Government." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th January 1942; Vol. 377, c. 63.]
That policy was carried out to the fullest extent. I have a letter here from the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company, and, as hon. Members may know, that company controls practically the whole of the shipping of Burma. I am informed in that letter that they themselves sank 95 per cent. of their vessels and that other commercial firms carried out a similar policy. The extent of the damage has yet to be determined, and until we return we shall not know what it is, but, undoubtedly, what we fail to destroy will be destroyed by the Japanese. As far as these commercial interests are concerned the point arises as to who is going to pay the cost of replacement.
In August, 1942, representations were made on behalf of the commercial interests of the Far East, and the Government were asked for a clear and defi-


nite statement in regard to the losses sustained in combating the enemy. I want to read the Government's reply. They said:
It will be the general aim of His Majesty's Government after the war that, with a view to the well-being of the people and the resumption of productive activity, property and goods destroyed or damaged in the Colonial Empire should be replaced or repaired to such an extent and over such a period of time as resources permit. If the resources of any part of the Colonial Empire are insufficient to enable this purpose to be achieved without aid, His Majesty's Government will be ready to give what assistance they can, in conjunction with such common fund or Organisation as may be established for post-war reconstruction.
That was not a very clear statement and it was received with disappointment. There was no acknowledgment of responsibility in it. It is of vital importance that these commercial firms should return to Burma and resume their activities. I came across a cutting from "The Financial News" of the 18th November quoting a Reuter wire from Delhi stating that the British Government had agreed to pay compensation, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, in his reply, will say whether that statement is true or not.

Mr. Keeling: That pledge on the part of the Government was only in connection with the Colonial Empire. Burma is not part of the Colonial Empire, and I should like to know whether the promise was not expressly extended so as to apply to Burma.

Mr. Shephard: Yes, that is so. It was extended to Burma, and a specific question was put down on that point. The pledge does apply to Burma. I hope my right hon. Friend will say whether that statement is true. I have the cutting here, and there does seem to be a good deal of doubt as to what is the position at the moment with regard to compensations of the commercial interests. On the other hand, hon. Members of this House who have been associated together in studying the future of Burma have made a recommendation that full compensation should only be paid on certain conditions. One is that these firms should return to Burma and resume their activities, the second is that their administrative offices should be located in Burma, the third is that their sharecapital should be in rupees of small denomination and freely exchangeable on the Rangoon Stock Exchange, and the fourth is that there

should be a systematic plan laid down for the training of the Burmese.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk has mentioned that one of our recommendations was that a commercial treaty should be signed, giving protection to those commercial firms, and it is necessary that these commercial firms should have some guarantee. We can hardly expect them to go back to that country without a guarantee of any sort. I want to end my speech with these words, which, again, are the words of the Governor, whom I have quoted very freely to-day, because I think they are of very great significance—
Burma will be a test case of our good intentions.

12.48 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I make no apology to the House for intervening briefly in this Debate, because I happen to know Burma and have very happy recollections of that land. I know Burma from the open sea up the great estuary of the Rangoon river; I know something of that great city and of the trade which our people have created there. I know its ricefields and its mills and what was once that great hive of industry at Syriam, near Rangoon. Those who have been to Burma and have seen the sun set over the Shwe Dagon Pagoda have imperishable memories of that land, and will be glad to do anything that may be in their power to help it forward to prosperity, contentment and happiness. I think that those hon. Members who asked for this Debate to-day asked for it at an opportune moment. Burma does not loom very largely in the gigantic panorama of this world conflict; but, after all, we are dealing with a country with a population of 17,000,000, and a country which, from the geographical conditions, must play a vital role in the policy of South-East Asia, and, in that way, throughout the whole great problem of the future of the Pacific.
I read the other day a semi-official appreciation of the military situation in Burma, and there I saw it stated that the early liberation of Burma was assured and the occupation of Mandalay was imminent. It is quite true that this appreciation of the early liberation of Burma was conditioned by several "ifs." "If so-and-so happened in the Philippines" and "if so-and-so happened in Malaya, then the early liberation of Burma was


assured." These "ifs" have been rather too common in the last three years for us to attach much importance to them, but I think we may assume that the reoccupation of Mandalay is one of the possibilities of the very early future. Our troops have passed through one of the most terrible campaigns in the history of the British Empire I doubt if, anywhere, except possibly in New Guinea, have British troops had to face a more terrible ordeal than the 14th Army faced in the torrential jungles of Manipur and the Abor country. They are faced not only by a keen, resolute and unscrupulous enemy, but also by malaria in its very worst form, and one has only to look at the statistics of the invalided from that Army to realise what it must have passed through
One day, we may hope, that epic story will be told, because it does not redound to our credit that it has not been told yet and is not fully appreciated by our people. When it is told, we shall realise what we owe to those British, Indian and African regiments which fought on this front, and what we owe to the gallant airmen of the United States who established a mastery of the air, and then we shall appreciate the magnitude of the victory which smashed, amidst these appalling conditions, the very picked Divisions of the Japanese army, and drove them back, decimated, into the plains of Upper Burma.
We may hope that the worst of that campaign is over. The rainy season has passed, fairer weather has set in, the malarious jungles are left behind and we may hope soon to find our Forces in the old capital of Mandalay. I fear it is a grievous spectacle will meet them when they enter Mandalay. Those great lacquered pillars of the Pavilion of the Burmese Kings, which were once the joy of residents and tourists, are now nothing more than heaps of ashes; the houses just blackened rubble.
The men who have fought this campaign, and the men who have the further stages of the fight still before them, are asking, as many people throughout the East and at home are looking ahead and asking, what our troops are fighting for and whether we are re-entering Burma with a fixed purpose in view. Surely, there can be only one answer to that question? We are entering Burma as

liberators, and with a fixed determination to establish in that land, as soon as may be, complete self-government, and, with it, the full implications of Dominion status. My right hon. Friend may say, very truly, that this is implicit both in past declarations and in the Preamble to the Act of 1935, which established the form of Government which functioned in Burma prior to the Japanese invasion—a form of Government which, it is often forgotten, carried Burma very far indeed on the road to self-government.
May I put this point to my right hon. Friend? That this policy is implicit; it has been definitely stated in several pronouncements; but that it does not go far enough and does not carry the present conviction to the Burmans that their political future is assured? I would ask the Minister if, either now or on some early occasion, he will make a clear, definite and unequivocal statement that the whole goal of our policy in Burma is the establishment of full self-government, and that that self-government shall carry Dominion status in the full implications of the sonorous language of the Statute of Westminster; further, I trust that that declaration may go forward under the Sign-Manual of the King-Emperor. However clear, definite, earnest and unequivocal are these declarations, it must follow as clearly as night follows day that self-government cannot be immediately established when the liberation of Burma is complete. I can imagine nothing more fatuous, indeed I would say more wicked, than immediately to ask the Burmese Government to take charge of a ravished land, without any resources for the great work before them, and to judge them by results which are absolutely unattainable, without the assistance of this country and without the responsibility of this Parliament.
An analogy has been drawn between the guarantee given to India and that given to Burma, but the comparison is absolutely ludicrous and hardly worth mentioning. What possible comparison can there be between India, a country which has suffered no more from the war than a bomb or two on Chittagong or Calcutta, a country with immense resources in sterling, and a country which has been ravaged from Bhamo to Rangoon and is destitute of any financial resources within itself? There must be a


period of reconstruction, and, during that period of reconstruction, this House and this country must be responsible for the governance of Burma. I would urge the Minister with all the emphasis at my command that this reconstruction period should be fixed, so we may know whither we are going. It is quite true that my right hon Friend or I, or anybody who knows Burma, can produce a dozen good arguments against a fixed period of reconstruction. I will only produce one in its favour, and it is that, without it, there can be no Burmese co-operation in the task before us. Any sort of general statement that self-government shall be given "as soon as may be," or "as soon as economic conditions permit," will be regarded as a breach of faith between us and the Burmans, and is, therefore, to be completely deplored.
There is, I venture to suggest, another reason why a fixed period for the reconstructive work should be laid down. It will give to the administration in Burma a blue print on which to work. It will give a definite programme and plan to guide them in their activities, knowing well that, at the end of this period, their responsibility will cease and the task will be handed over entirely to Burmese hands. During this period of reconstruction, it is to my mind essential, although Parliament must still remain responsible, that the Burmese Office should be entirely separated from the India Office and should be lodged elsewhere in our administrative system. I know that my right hon. Friend, who is Secretary of State for India and also Secretary of State for Burma, does his utmost to hold the scales even, but, even if he does, nobody in Burma will be satisfied that he does, and, therefore, we have suggested that Burmese affairs, so long as Parliament is responsible, shall be transferred to the Dominions or other office, so that this guarantee of good faith and impartiality may be assured.
I do not want to detain the House by discussing further the constitutional problems in Burma, which have been well handled earlier in the Debate. I want to touch for a moment or two on the economic problem which will face Burma and this House, as long as it is responsible, when the liberation of the country is complete. That problem has been described in semi-official pronounce-

ments as one of vast magnitude and one which must be immensely costly. Burma still has two inexhaustible assets—its rice and teak. The backbone of the Burmese economy is rice, with a 6,000,000 ton crop and 3,500,000 tons of exports. It is quite true that through the fluctuation in world prices the economic position of rice growers has varied very materially in the last few years. I venture to suggest that that has completely changed. India is avid for Burma rice. India must have her Burma rice, or go short. I think much of the troubles in Bengal last year were due to the cutting off of imports of rice from Burma. Therefore, a definite complete agricultural policy the moment we have liberated Burma, is of the first importance.
There is this further argument. You can destroy oil wells and refineries, you can ruin a railway and you can in other ways damage fixed industrial assets. No power I have heard of can destroy rice fields, and they are waiting to be tilled the moment the Japanese tyranny is overthrown. My information is that there has been a terrible loss of cattle in Burma through rinderpest and other diseases. In an Oriental country the buffalo and the bullock are the very lifeblood of the agriculturist, and his rehabilitation will demand rather special support in these directions. In considering these agricultural problems there are aspects of economic conditions of the Burmese cultivator which were terribly depressing. Over 40 per cent. of the land had passed into the possession of Indian immigrants, and the industry is burdened with £50,000,000 of debt. That is a problem and a position which must be faced. I hope we shall hear from my right hon. Friend that it is the fixed policy of the liberating Government, that when civil administration is set up, even in the reconstruction period, to take definite steps to restore the land so far as possible to the Burman, and that steps be further taken to see that the land restored to the Burmans does not pass again into the possession of non-cultivating immigrants. It is true it will involve restrictions on the right of transfer and some limitations of agricultural credit. Why should we boggle at that, when we have done it successfuly in the Punjab, and have recently started the same process in Palestine? The Burmese cultivator even then will require finance for the cultivation


of his crop. Knowing Oriental conditions and also something of peasant proprietorship I think the ideal method is co-operative credit. But that is bound to be of slow growth in Burma, and I suggest that at the very earliest moment consideration shall be given to the establishment of a land bank.
The teak industry is another inexhaustible asset. The teak forests have been worked with wisdom and scientific skill. We do not quite know what the position will be. Possibly the sawmills in Rangoon will have been destroyed but the forests will remain. In the forests "my Lord the Elephant" is supreme; I am told that 5,000 to 7,000 trained elephants were working in the forests and their collection and reorganisation may be a slow matter. Roughly speaking it takes five years, sometimes seven years from the time when the tree is marked down for felling before the log reaches the port ready for shipment, and however rapidly we may go ahead it may be some time before the teak forests are in full use again.
These two resources in Burma which I have mentioned are inexhaustible. There are others which are not in that happy position. When I went to the oilfield at Yenanyong and Yenanyat I was told that there was signs of exhaustion. That was 25 years ago. They are in full production to-day. I am told also that the mines of the Burma corporation have a very limited tenure and user, and no other mineral deposits have been found. Even for the period of life remaining to them, the development and restoration of these interests are of the utmost importance, because otherwise Burma will be a poor agricultural country and the pre-war standard of life will be reduced.
In the development of these industries which owe so much to our people, there are two features which cannot meet with our approval. They are that so much industry and so much commerce was non-Burman—that much of the industry and much of the commerce was exotic and not indigenous, and under non-Burman control. Whatever may be the reason for it, the Burman is a rather happy-go-lucky man, capable of short bursts of intense labour, but rather resenting long and continued and steady toil, with the result that labour his fallen into mainly Indian and Chinese hands. In the period

of reconstruction our policy must be steadily directed to associating the Burman more closely with industry and commerce, and when these firms which have done so much for the prosperity of Burma are invited to go back, with adequate compensation for military losses, they should be required to have an even more active policy than they have pursued in order to associate the Burmese more clearly with those economic and industrial developments, and with this commercial activity.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us in the course of the Debate what has been the actual cost of keeping the nominal Burmese Government in existence since the evacuation, and who has borne that charge? We are constantly hearing of burdens to be thrown on the British taxpayer and he will bear them. I have a rather tender spot for the British taxpayer, and if we are to ask him to assist financially in this immense work we must be quite certain that we lay no burden on him, even of a shilling, which is unnecessary. I do press my right hon. Friend that, so long as he is in a position of influence or control he will insist that during the reconstruction period there must be no champagne standard in the administration of Burma but a ginger-beer standard; no higher standard of cost than is necessary for efficient administration and to attract the best men.
Finally, I would ask my right hon. Friend to make his explanation to-day clear beyond doubt to the Burman that we go back there as liberators to establish him as master in his own country, at the end of a limited period of reconstruction, and that so far as in us lies we shall assist in the rehabilitation of his industry, so that not only may the pre-war standard of life, which was relatively high, judged by Asiatic standards, be maintained, but that it even rise higher than it was before the hard and bitter days through which that country has passed, and which we hope before long will belong to the evil past.

1.11 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I think the House is indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) for initiating in so moving and eloquent a way this discussion to-day. It is true that in the last few weeks considerable public attention has been


drawn to the problem of Burma because of the publication of the proposals of a small group of members of the Conservative Party. In so far as they have stimulated discussion and aroused general interest I think they have done a very worthy piece of work. I feel there are so many large problems of Imperial urgency which have been neglected by this House, problems which call for declarations and for early solutions, that this opportunity of discussing Burma is very welcome indeed. Parliament, particularly now, has a very grave responsibility in regard to this matter, because as has already been pointed out in the Debate, Burma after all is a signal of our good faith and our liberal intentions in that part of the world. People are curious to know in this country as well as in other parts of the world what is to be our policy not only in regard to Burma but to Malaya, Ceylon, India and Hong Kong. There is little doubt that so far as Burma itself is concerned it is an area of vast strategic interest and a matter of considerable importance, not only to ourselves but also to the neighbouring countries and the Imperial powers interested in that part of the world. The United States, the Chinese, the French, Indians, the Russians, all have an interest in the manner in which we discharge our responsibilities in this part of the world.
I think the consideration of this problem by this House is a matter of urgency, if only because of the publicity which has been given to the proposals in the Conservative publication "Blue-print for Burma." Also because Burma itself will, we hope, before very long be liberated and some action is called for from us as a result of that change. I would in the first place, like to join with the other Members who have paid a tribute to the magnificent quality of our troops who have been fighting so hard and making such enormous tragic sacrifices for the liberation of that country.
In conditions which are incredibly tragic and difficult they have suffered nobly. Not only have our troops from these Islands played a gallant part but also troops drawn from East and West Africa, and from other parts of the Empire as well. So, as Burma nears liberation, I think it is important that we declare to the world, as well as to the Burmese, what our policy will be. It is the more neces-

sary because of the insidious propaganda, which has been going on during these years of occupation by the Japanese, all calculated to undermine the goodwill and the co-operation of the Burmese with Britain. Therefore, I think we must ask the Secretary of State for India to-day to tell us what assurance he proposes to give to the Burmese in regard to self-government and their future inside the British Commonwealth.
I think, as has been brought out in the Debate, there are great imponderable influences at work on the peoples of these countries in South East Asia. The spirit of freedom, of nationalism, has grown. The call to the under-privileged, which was proclaimed by the Russian revolution, has created a demand for unity and freedom both in India and in China. The impact of these things is making itself felt in all parts of South East Asia, and it is obvious that in the world which is emerging from this war there can be no political domination, no economic domination, without the consent of the peoples concerned. Indeed, for the last 50 years we have witnessed a retreat from political Imperialism, and we shall see also, I think, in the days to come a retreat from some of the excesses of economic Imperialism as well. I want, therefore, to question the wisdom and the justice of the period of time presented in the proposals of the Conservative Group. I have very grave doubts, in areas where nationalism has become so intense, where there was a strong view for full self-government during the years preceding the war, whether it is at all possible to hold these great forces and influences in check for a period as long as that indicated in the proposals of the Conservative Group. I recognise the force of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for South West Norfolk, who made it clear that the six-year period was an undefined one—was merely a limited target that ought to be set——

Mr. De Chair: I hope the hon. Member will not think I am intervening unnecessarily, but I want to make it quite clear that it is definite in so far as there is a ceiling of a maximum of six years; it is elastic in so far as we are agreed that there may be a shorter period.

Mr. Creech Jones: I fully appreciate the point, and obviously it is a time limit which is set, a ceiling, and it is hoped that the period of reconstruction may be


shorter in which the Burmese themselves may enter into possession of their full political responsibility. I recognise of course, the importance of great caution in dealing with an area which has been ravaged in the manner in which this country has been ravaged, and that there must be some time before rehabilitation and effective control can be secured. I feel, however, that if the time-lag is at all considerable, if it is as long as five or six years, it will cause considerable dismay and disappointment to the Burmese, and it will undoubtedly react to the prejudice of our own prestige, and will tend to dim what good faith still exists in the word of Britain. I fear, too, that if this period of delay is permitted, we shall also expose ourselves to considerable criticism from our friends in this war. The United States will be handling the Philippines, and her attempt at speedy political liberation will be proclaimed as the model which should inspire Britain in her relation to Burma. It is customary for the Americans to attach so much importance to constitutional liberation, although I fear that too often they forget the equal and vital importance of economic liberation.
The Burmese, therefore, demand their freedom, and it is very little use our talking about their lack of experience, their mental insularity, that enlightened public opinion is needed before they can have responsible government, and all that sort of thing. The Burmese are bound to put to us the pledges which were given and which have already been mentioned. The Secretary of State himself made a notable declaration in November, 1941. The Burmese will ask us, by what right do we assert our sovereignty over them without their consent? That is a difficult question to answer. I would also point out that one cannot hope for stability and the restoration of economic prosperity unless you have the co-operation and collaboration of the Burmese themselves. Therefore, let us do what we can to shorten this period, let us try to set up responsible government at the earliest moment following liberation, and let the Burmese themselves shape the constitution they want, and let us, as a nation, be prepared to take risks in that matter.
I want to say a few words in regard to the points that have been made about

social and economic rehabilitation. One of the reasons why I think it is important that there should be political responsibility, even in the early years following liberation, is because if you have to reconstruct the economic and social life of a country, it is vitally important that the people concerned should have some say in regard to the form and shape that economic reconstruction and social life should take. Therefore, we cannot play the part of a paternal government in the building-up; we have to get the full co-operation and collaboration in economic and social change of the people concerned. Burma is one of those areas which have been the peculiar prey of what some writers have called "colonial economics." It is because of the servitude, economically, of the people to alien interests that the spirit of nationalism has grown so intensely in recent years. It has been pointed out already that the whole agriculture of the country has been twisted for the production of rice exports; that the people are indebted to the extent of something like £50,000,000 to Indian money lenders; that a great proportion of the rice lands are in the possession of Indians; that there are considerable numbers of non-agricultural, absenteee landlords. We have also been told this morning that it is British capital which very largely exploits the oil, the tin, the copper, and the other minerals to be found in that area, and certainly a great deal of the labour which is employed in industry, on the roads and on public works, is Indian labour. In these circumstances we need not wonder, not only at the intense feeling of nationalism, but also at the reaction being expressed now by leading Burmese that the time has come when this exploitive character of economic organisation shall be abandoned, and greater regard paid to the welfare and prosperity of the people themselves.
Regarding foreign domination, I have been interested to read the excuses which are sometimes offered for it by those who attempt to justify it. On the other hand a distinguished Burman said the other day:
The Burmese are supposed to be thriftless because (except during the rice boom which crashed with dire consequences to the country) they never earned enough income to save an effective amount of capital out of it. It was like 'trying to find the sublime emperor in lowly tea-shops' to exhort the Burmese cultivator, living from hand to mouth, to


save. The Burmese are supposed to be lazy because, being either fully or seasonally unemployed, they have nothing to be busy with. The Burmese are supposed to be indifferent to trade and industry because European firms naturally preferred to employ Europeans in skilled jobs and cheap Indian labour in unskilled jobs.
That is the Burmese reaction and explanation of the economic influences controlling the situation in Burma. Of course, it must be admitted that the natural resources of Burma depend for their development on great capital outlay, on large-scale enterprise, on great scientific knowledge, on wide technical skill and experience, but the objection to alien domination economically, is because the whole region has been treated as a possession either of Britain or of India, has been treated purely as an appendage instead of as an area which has intrinsic rights of its own. It has been an area of great speculation, it has been directed by outside interests, and so far the co-operation of the Burmese themselves in the development of the social and economic life of their own country has not been secured.
It is obvious, I think, that in the days to come this old laissez faire economic policy must end. Burma must, of course, if she is to go forward, have foreign capital, she must have overseas trade and foreign technicians but I submit that in that period of reconstruction, these must be contributed for her proper development, for the building up of her own prosperity within a framework of policy determined by herself. Even if, as our Conservative friends point out, it means slowing down the processes of development, change and rehabilitation, such development must not outstrip Burmese sentiment or tradition. Further, the control of labour within her area certainly must be in the hands of the Burmese. What we have encouraged in the matter of labour policy in the past must not become the policy of the future. Immigration and standards of Indian labour must be matters to be determined largely by the responsible Government of Burma.
It would not be right that I should indicate the lines on which my party have been thinking in regard to the reconstruction and rehabilitation in Burma. We have heard to-day about the alienation of land. That is a situation which ought to be changed; alienation of land ought to be stopped, and the land brought back again into the possession of Burma.

There ought to be, as we all admit, some control of the excesses of moneylending, and a great effort made again to build up co-operative credit and production. In regard to processing and ancillary industries, the practice of co-operation might well be extended. Indeed, in all the economic activities of Burma the first consideration and the first charge should be the well-being of the people concerned. I hope, therefore, that in this period of reconstruction we shall learn from our experience in this war and from the experiments we have made in other parts of the Empire. In West Africa we have carried through, during these difficult years, some very remarkable experiments in State trading by which we have been able to guarantee steady prices, assured markets and have produced a greater rationalism in economic activities. The White Paper published the other day in regard to Cocoa in West Africa illustrates that point.
Likewise, I think more attention must be given, in the case of Burma, to Governmental control and planning in regard to the exploitation of minerals and the founding of industries. I was much impressed with the conclusions forced upon the members of the Conservative Party who provided this Report, when they said:
We can only tentatively suggest that the Government of Burma should itself become partners in the financial side of rconstruction. … A policy to reduce the exotic character of Burma's commercial and industrial economy, and to plant it deep in the soil and the people would certainly slow down the pace of resuscitation; nevertheless, taking the long view, it would be better to hasten a little slowly rather than to reproduce conditions incompatible with the spirit of Burman nationalism.
Our friends seem to recognise the vital importance of State enterprise, organisation, policy, programmes and planning in regard to this problem of economic resuscitation. You cannot talk of political freedom unless you remove the causes of economic servitude, and I hope the Government, by pursuing a strong and vigorous policy of co-operation and of financial assistance, will help to make good the ravages and destruction of the past few years and will help the Burmese on the road to progress. I believe that the Burmese have no intention, once they achieve complete self-government, of moving outside the British Empire. I believe they recognise that Burma's


destiny is inside the British Commonwealth of Nations. Indeed, without being a free nation in the Commonwealth her own security cannot be secured. Burma occupies a place in the world which is of immense strategic importance for the security of the world, and it is of the greatest moment that as early as possible order should be restored and the Burmese encouraged to take control of their own economic processes while we do our best to bring her back to good health by giving her as great a degree of responsibility as possible. I hope that the Secretary of State, because of the urgency and importance of this problem and because of the repercussions which his statement will have in all parts of the world, particularly at this moment when friends of liberty are just a little bit doubtful as to the purpose of British policy, will encourage us to believe that as soon as possible Burma shall have her full self-government restored, and that Britain will play an active part in making her economic and social life healthy again.

1.37 p.m.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I am sure that my hon. Friends and I can have no objection to the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), in his references to our Report. But, on the other hand, I, personally, would like to disagree most strongly with him on one point. There are other points on which I also disagree, but I would like to concentrate on this one: He questioned the wisdom and justice of fixing a period of time before giving Dominion status to Burma. He apparently has some doubts as to whether the Burmese might not have a grievance if we did not immediately hand over Burma to them when the Japanese were expelled. That would be the cruellest thing this country could do; it would be a grave injustice to Burma. Imagine a country ravaged from end to end, without communications and practically no revenue, taking over control after the Japanese had been expelled. It would mean that the British Government were getting rid of their responsibility at a cheap price, and I hope no British Government will go back on their responsibilities to that extent.
My hon. Friends and I suggest that there should be a fixed period of six years

during which a constitution for Burma should be worked out and which should come into being at the end of that time. The only criticism that there can be is that period is too short. We felt that it was essential to give to the people of Burma the assurance that we were working to give them self-government at the earliest possible date. During that six years there will be an enormous number of problems to be solved; no shorter period is possible without doing injustice to the people of Burma.

Mr. Tinker: The hon. Member and previous Conservative speakers have mentioned a fixed period of time in a certain publication. Where can one get that publication? Is it a Government publication?

Mr. Henderson: It can be obtained at Conservative offices and perhaps at bookstalls, although I am not sure. I think there is no doubt that in the world to-day there is a feeling that larger areas are desirable for economic security and other reasons. People talk about federations of Europe and of the world, but these are, I am afraid, some distance away. But we have, to-day, three large economic blocs—the United States of America, Russia and the British Empire. Our job in the post-war years will be to fit the Empire—ourselves, Dominions and Colonies—into a unit, perhaps a closer unit than in the past, and I think it will be a tragedy if, while the world is working towards larger unity, any constituent parts should decide to go outside the British Empire. The hon. Member for Shipley said that he believed that Burma wanted to remain within the British Empire. Obviously, it will be to her advantage that she should remain within the Empire. We do not sufficiently take up the attitude that to be a member of the British Empire is a great advantage, both from an economic and security point of view. I am sure that Burma would be very vulnerable unless she was a member of the British Empire.
I do not think that the question of the defence of Burma, when the new Government comes into existence there, has been raised. The hon. Member for Shipley mentioned the strategic position Burma occupied and, of course, it affects many other countries, including India, France, China, Russia and Australia. Burma is an integral part of South East


Asia strategy and defence and we have suggested that, in the Treaty referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair), provision should be made for the necessary naval bases, military establishments and Air Force stations being retained under the control of the Imperial Government. At this stage it is difficult to say what will happen in the future, but the question of the defence of the Colonies and Dominions is sure to be an Empire question. Perhaps it is premature to try to go fully into it now, but I think we must bear in mind the safety of the Empire as a whole. During the Japanese occupation of Burma they have appeared to create a Burmese army, with its own commander-in-chief. I do not know whether that army has been a complete success, because it has had to be reorganised and there has been much indiscipline and corruption. I think there is no doubt that the Burmese Government will want to set up an Army of its own. We ought to be prepared to co-operate and to give every facility for training, and put our experience at the disposal of the new Army and create as close a relationship between our Army and Services and theirs as is possible.
We must be careful that we do not always believe that the British form of democracy is the one best suited to every Colony, whatever its circumstances and whatever its history. I think we are rather inclined to look at our own system of democracy, which undoubtedly is the best in the world, and to believe that it can be set up in any other country ready made. I do not agree with that. The British-made and British-designed democracy is not, to my mind, a dress fitted for every figure. Every new nation cannot go to a ready-made tailor and get a standard form of democratic dress which will fit without alteration. Perhaps in the past we have been too inclined to think that our system, which is suited to the Anglo-Saxon temperament, is the type of Government naturally suited to people of a different race, starting very much newer to come to this question of democracy. We want to have a democratic form of Government but we should not make it too rigid. We should try to suit it to the requirements of the people. I hope, when we come to work out the new constitution with the Burmese, we shall not be too rigid and narrow in our

views, but shall try to think out what form of democracy is suited to get the best results. For example, universal suffrage may not be the most suitable and really democratic system for Burma.
I think there is no reason why Burma should not have a great future. Undoubtedly she has gone through very difficult and serious times during the last few years and Japan has, no doubt, done her best to get the maximum out of her while giving the greatest appearance of liberty. I do not think we have anything to be ashamed of with regard to Burma. The constitution that we gave her in 1937 was a great act of statesmanship. I do not think that any other country in the world has ever parted with power at such an early stage and to a more complete degree. We are quite determined to give Burma Dominion status as soon as possible and we hope that she will be happy and contented as a constituent part of the British Empire.

1.49 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Donner: I am not certain that I agree wholly with the interpretation which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) attached to the events which led to the dethronement of King Thibaw in 1886, and his removal from the Golden Palace at Mandalay, together with his Achinamadawpaya. But however that may be, I should like to pay my tribute to him and his colleagues for their devoted labours in producing their "Blue Print for Burma." I agree with their three major conclusions. I agree that the pledges which we have made to Burma must be honoured to the full and should be implemented as soon as possible. I agree also that we must exclude the non-Burmese areas of Upper Burma so as to enable those people to live happily on their own lines as an entirely separate entity unless and until they themselves ask for incorporation into the Dominion of Burma. The desire of the Federated Shan States to be a separate political entity was generally accepted as reasonable at the Burma Round Table Conference in 1932. On 8th January of that year "The Times" wrote in a leading article that
a Burmese-Shan Federation is a vision of the distant future.
I envisage for the excluded areas, a series of protectorates which I hope will evolve into a self-governing federation but which


must be for the present forms of indirect rule with appropriate degrees of trusteeship and self-government according to the degree of advance reached, varying from the primitive head-hunting Wa tribes to the much more advanced Buddhist Shans. Thirdly, I welcome the emphasis which my hon. Friends have put in their report on the need for a bold land policy and for freeing the peasants from the slavery of the money lender. While agreeing with these three main propositions first, the fulfilment of our promises, secondly, the exclusion of the non-Burmese territories in the East and North and, thirdly, the de-enslavement of the peasant, there are other aspects of the report which I fear are likely to be misinterpreted if they have not already been so. What are crucial and vital to the whole future of Burma are the references in the Blue Print to the constituent and representative assemblies which are, they imply, to frame and pass the new constitution. Those references are in my view disastrously misleading because they can be and have already in some quarters been interpreted as suggesting that the existing Burmese politicians who represent so largely the commercial interests of the urban areas and not the out-districts, the Burmese peasants, should compose both assemblies.
I would plead most earnestly that nothing should go out from this House to suggest that either the constituent assembly to frame the constitution or the representative assembly to assent to it, on behalf of the Burmese people as a whole, shall be a mere group of Europeanised intelligentsia. Our promises have been made to the people of Burma as a whole. They have not been made to the Europeanised intelligentsia nor merely to the commercial interests of the urban areas including the shop keepers of Rangoon. Our promises have been made in the spirit of democracy, and if democracy mean anything it means Government by the whole people through representatives who represent the whole people and above all the peasantry in a land of peasants. It so happens that we have to our hands a magnificent instrument for obtaining just such representation of the people, that is through the village headmen, who really represent the villagers themselves and who differ from the village headmen in some other Oriental countries by maintaining on the whole,

and with a few exceptions, a remarkably high standard of honesty and integrity. They too have what is known as the Awza, the authority, and only this morning "The Times" pays a tribute to the loyalty of these village headmen.
I seriously suggest that both these assemblies should be composed as to a substantial majority of village headmen, elected by the village headmen of Burma, so as to get at the real truth of what the majority of the people, the peasants, really think and feel. There are obvious and superficial objections to that course. The objection to it is that they are not competent to devise and appreciate constitutions. Of course they are not, but neither by any standard are the representatives of the commercial interests of the urban areas nor, with a few exceptions, are the politicians; because they have no real understanding, they have not travelled and they have no first hand acquaintance with the working of Government in any other country. The insignificant handful of politicians who have that understanding and knowledge would of course be rightly and properly represented in both Assemblies. In reality no constituent assembly ever writes a constitution. That can only be the work of the study of individuals or small groups, working over it clause by clause. What a constituent assembly can do and does is to consider rival drafts, listen shrewdly to the expounders of each and weigh and modify. What a representative assembly can do is similarly to weigh and to modify and to consider the final constitution presented to it. It is therefore its representative and not its originative capacity which matters. That is why I ventured to describe the objection to the election of village headmen as a superficial objection.
I should like to protest most emphatically against the suggestion which is implicit in the report that although we are likely to be faced with the consequences of the Japanese scorched earth policy, although we are likely to find chaos in Burma, nevertheless we should implement the promise of full Dominion status to that country by a given date, and to decide upon a given date now. No one knows what the economic, social, political, and psychological harvest of Japanese occupation is likely to be. No one knows the authentic facts of the


situation in Burma to-day. We are informed that the Burmese have been hood-winked by the Japanese into accepting the name and the shadow of self government without its reality. Many who know the East suspect that the Burmese are shrewder than that; suspect that they have not been taken in and have seen through the make-belief and are aware of their chains. In this House we are unanimous in our wish to give Burma not the name or the shadow of self government but the reality, and that is why I beg my right hon. Friend not to fix a date now at which time full Dominion status for Burma will be established because we do not know what the circumstances in Burma are. Surely it would be madness if, when liberating the country, we found chaos and destitution and had to grapple with those conditions and at the same time tried to build up the institutions of self government only to find ourselves rashly committed in our ignorance to a fixed and unalterable date.
I beg the House to consider what has happened in the liberated sovereign countries of Europe and to consider whether we should do anything which might increase the risk of a similar development in Burma. After all, Burma is a plural society. Therefore we have not only the Burmese but the non-Burmese races, not to mention the Indians and the Chinese. We have all the material for civil strife in that vast country. There will be abandoned Japanese arms left all over the countryside and the people who are armed will take time to disarm. Arms will be found hidden in fields, forests and jungles. There will be dacoits everywhere, and there is every danger that we shall see in Burma a repetition of the distressing scenes that we are witnessing in Athens to-day, but on a far greater scale. In addition, when the immigrant Indians left in their hundreds of thousands and trekked back through the forests and over the mountains, some Burmese, unfortunately, not merely charged them too much for water, but knocked them about, looted and wounded them and in some cases killed them. It will take time before these mutual acerbities die down.
May I remind the House of a single trifling incident, but one which is immensely significant? When the British military authorities, faced with the

Japanese invasion, had to withdraw from Rangoon, they had to face the decision whether or not to let free the criminals and lunatics who were under restraint or whether to leave them cooped up, possibly to be murdered by the Japanese. In the end they let them loose, and the depredations of these men added to the distressing scenes which took place. When we return to Burma many of these men will be at large. I am not suggesting that they constitute a major problem, I mention it only as typical of innumerable problems which will face us when we return. I beg my right hon. Friend to leave us with free hands to deal with these problems and not with hands tied behind our backs by rash and premature gestures made in the sacred name of appeasing nationalist sentiments at the expense of the true interests of the Burmese people as a whole.
We simply do not know anything about the conditions inside Burma, except that we can guess that those conditions vary in the mountains, the forests, the plains and the scattered islands of a country which is, after all, greater than France. We are not only completely ignorant of the internal conditions in Burma, but we are also ignorant of the external conditions. The cumulative uncertainties are very great. They include the uncertainties arising out of the Japanese war; the uncertainties arising from the possibility that civil war may well prove to be for a time endemic in China; the uncertainties regarding the conditions in Siam; the uncertainties regarding the economic set-up of South-Eastern Asia; the uncertainties of the Dutch, French and American communications policies and how these will affect the sea and air routes to Burma; and finally they include uncertainties about Indian policy and Indian currency provisions as they will affect Burmese rice. I earnestly submit that since we know so little about both the internal and the external conditions of Burma we should act prudently. The "Blue-print for Burma" produced by my hon. Friends has been interpreted by those who would like to see a particular date fixed as bearing out their point of view, but I believe that the framers of that report intended their recommendations to be read in connection with their suggestion of the permanent linkage of the new regime with a treaty with this country.
Since misunderstanding has arisen, let us here and now clearly and categorically say that our promise of Dominion status will be carried out; but that that promise, however, like every other promise given by anybody to anybody, must be conditioned by the implied assumption of its sheer physical possibility or execution. Let us assert that we intend to give self-government to Burma, that we intend to give Dominion status, and that we intend to conclude a treaty with her, but that if we are faced with unimaginable chaos inside Burma and in the neighbouring countries to the East and North-East the dating of the implementation of those promises must inevitably have regard to the inescapable consequences of facts over which we have no control and must be limited by the physical conditions of carrying them out. I am profoundly uneasy in my mind as to two omissions from the Blue-print to which I have referred, which are crucial if our promises to the Burmese people as a whole are to be carried out. We can rectify the first if we assert that no class, race, category or religion or other grouping will be deprived of a full opportunity of expressing their views at every stage of constitution-making and that those views will be responsibly considered. The second omission can be rectified if we should insert, in any official announcement which my right hon. Friend may make, a declaration to the effect that the primitive peoples of the Mergui Archipelago should like the non-Burmese areas in the East and North also be excluded. These attractive but primitive people who are sometimes called the Mawkin, and sometimes the sea-gypsies, ought to be safeguarded and never made the subject of exploitation either by the Burmese intelligentsia or by external capitalistic interests taking advantage of any kind of economic, political or constitutional loophole which may be afforded.
In conclusion let us make it plain to the world that our promises to Burma stand. Let us make it plain that we intend to implement them at the earliest possible moment and that our promises are made to the Burmese people as a whole and not to an unrepresentative Europeanised intelligentsia, or to any mere group, such as the more vocal politicians or urban commercial interests. We should emphasise that the Treaty which we must make with Burma, if we are to safeguard the

economic interests of the land-locked States in the East and the North, and that the representation of all the people are an integral part of one and the same policy. I hope that we shall not commit ourselves to a fixed date for the new constitution. It would prevent investment which is essential to recovery and reconstruction. I hope that the non-Burmese areas, including the Mergui Archipelago will be excluded, that the inhabitants of Burma will be represented in proportion to their numbers in both the constituent assembly and the representative assembly, and that that safeguard will be made a reality. I hope that a mild humane, efficient, British administration will not be replaced by corruption, oppression, extortions, tyranny or enslavement by moneylenders, and that we shall be able to look forward to a free and happy Burma as a free partner in the Commonwealth, owing its independence and freedom so largely to the gallant 14th Army which has fought so brilliantly in Burma.

2.10 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I am glad that it was possible to allot part of the Debate on the Address to the question of Burma. The immediate excuse in our minds for asking for this allotment was that some of us have issued a short report on the subject. Our object was not to try and get the House to agree to the details of the Report. Our object was two-fold: first, to elicit from my right hon. Friend some statement on the Burma question which might contribute to stability and hope in that part of the world; and, secondly, to cause a rebirth in this House of an interest in Burma, for it is a sad reflection upon our sense of responsibility to that part of the Empire that it is 10 years since the subject was last debated in the House. This has not been an unsatisfactory Debate from our point of view. We have been criticised on one side by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) for going too far, and, on the other hand, we have been criticised for not going far enough. In view of that, our committee may be allowed to think that the broad lines of their conclusions may not be far from the truth. I make no excuse for these activities and for asking for this Debate.
Tropical problems will be amongst the most difficult we shall have to face after


the war, and the way we handle the Burma problem may prove to be the turning point in the whole of our Imperial policy. We cannot afford to fail, and I hope that this will be only the first of many debates on the subject. Burma is not an isolated problem. There are several Oriental appendages of Western Powers, some independent like Siam, others colonies like Indo-China and Malaya. All hang together, and the way in which the British Empire and the United Nations handle these problems will be of the utmost significance for the future of South-East Asia. In facing problems of these dimensions we must pledge ourselves to an unremitting attachment to the truth. We must not allow our views to be coloured by any motives, however honourable, nor ignore the difficulties inherent in the situation. For that reason I feel bound to register a protest against the tendency in the speeches of one or two of my hon. Friends to apologise for, or even to vilify, parts of our record in Burma. I do not think any apology is needed. I do not say that we have been perfect, for we certainly have not, but under our administration Burma has progressed, it has been happy, the population and standard of living have increased, a high standard of law and order has obtained, and justice has been administered. We have not done too badly, and when we think of the state of Burma 100 years ago and the state of the country to-day, we find that there has been greater relative progress there than there has been in this country.
We want to see things with a sense of proportion. There is no need to blame the Government of the day for the third Burmese war in the 'eighties. If my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) can find anything good to say about King Thilaw's Government I shall be very much surprised. It was the most outrageous Government. It did not represent the people, nor did it attract any of their loyalty. The very fact that in those parts of Burma that comprised the Kingdom of Upper Burma the loyalty of the Burmese to the British connection has been most pronounced, proves my point. Do not let us, even for the most honourable reasons, take an attitude of apology. We are very prone to do that in this country. We are so reluctant to boast that we swing too far in other directions.

The Government in this country, the Government in India and the commercial community in Burma have done their best to do their duty as they thought right. We may interpret those duties differently to-day and in a different light from that in which they were interpreted then; nevertheless they tried to do their duty, with results by no means inconsiderable.
Secondly, I would ask the House not to underestimate the difficulties inherent in the situation. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk quoted a remark of a Governor of Burma to the effect that neither our word nor our intentions were trusted in that part of the globe, but I do not think he explained what the Governor meant by that. He did not mean that our honesty was not trusted, The Governor went on to say—I am missing out a few words:
We have fed such countries as Burma on political formulae until they are sick of the very sound or sight of a formula. Our formulae have puzzled not only our enemies but also our friends, because they have been hard to interpret to either friend or foe.
It is quite simple; the position comes about from our refusal to face the difficulties. We have consoled ourselves with the belief that the promise of independence was in itself a very valuable contribution to the stability and the happiness of a tropical country, but it is not. To promote the happiness of those tropical appendages—I do not like the word "dependencies"—we must face the primary facts of the situation, one of which is that the essentials of democracy are absent and that our first task is to build them up. That faces us with the fundamental dilemma of the whole problem. If we have not the willing and happy co-operation of the Burmese we shall never go any distance at all, but if we content ourselves with making promises on the tacit assumption that the essentials of democracy are present, we shall, sooner or later, be driven to go back on our bond and so make confusion worse confounded and ourselves distrusted because of loss of faith in our pledged word.
My opinion is that the recommendations of this Report have three points behind which we should really stand unreservedly. One is the fixed period of direct administration. If one may venture a criticism of the esteemed Chairman of our


Committee, it is that he himself was in favour of that recommendation. We said we must have a fixed period of maximum duration. It did not matter whether it was for six or seven years. What mattered was that we must be definite.

Mr. De Chair: We do not want this rift in the lute. Is it not the case that we did not want precisely six years, but in fact stated that the period should not exceed six years?

Mr. Nicholson: The words were that there should be
a period of reconstruction of fixed duration.
I agree that it may not be quite clear, but my opinion is that if we allow Burma, India or any other country to think that advance in constitutional progress depends upon our good will, it puts the assumption as to their constitutional progress upon a wrong basis. We must make a statement with a full intention of carrying it out, not with the idea of saying: "Because you have been good boys we shall shorten the sentence." That puts the whole thing on a wrong footing and is not the way to get co-partnership and co-operation. There should be a fixed period for other reasons as well. It is positive cruelty to think of handing over to any hypothetical independent Government bankrupt and ravaged country, desolated not only physically but morally. One of the features of the world situation to-day is the extraordinary havoc wrought by war on the psychology of the peoples of ravaged countries who seem to have lost all respect for law and order. This can be seen at the present moment in the highly nervous state of the inhabitants of countries like Greece.
The next thing by which I stand is that we do not recommend a constituent assembly. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke unfortunately did not read the Report accurately. We do not think that a constituent assembly would be the best instrument to draw up the future constitution of Burma. That is one of the, perhaps inevitable, weaknesses of the Cripps offer to India. Constituent assemblies have a terrible habit of falling out. If such falling out should have to be made the excuse for not granting constitutional self government to Burma, it would be very dangerous indeed. I think you would get a much sounder contribu-

tion by the appointment of a representative Council of Burmese to assist the Governor in the work of reconstruction and constitution making than if the constitution were to be drawn up in the full glare of the limelight. Secondly, as we in this House are primarily responsible, we cannot shake off our responsibility. We must approve the constitution that is to be offered to the population of Burma through its elected representatives. We should not hand over responsibility for the constitution of Burma to a constituent assembly for any reason whatever.

Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask what would be the position of the constituent assembly? Could they accept or reject the constitution or will the constitution be imposed upon Burma?

Mr. Nicholson: I hope my hon. Friend will not say "constituent assembly." I am not speaking for the Burma Committee, but for myself. My idea is that there will be a body that will draw up the constitution which will then be offered to an assembly elected by the country on the widest possible franchise. My conception is that it will be a very liberal constitution. In regard to acceptance or rejection if it is the sort of constitution I imagine, I believe they will accept it.
The third plank in the platform is the definite promise of implementation of what would be Dominion status, as soon as the treaty has been signed. The time has come when we have to be definite, and if anything is going to be done in that part of the world it should be decided upon and any promises made resolutely carried out. Whatever policy we follow, it is clear that Burma cannot stand alone in the world. It is clear that Burma will need constitutional advice, and help of every sort, including financial. All this must be done on a basis of co-operation and partnership, which cannot exist merely in an atmosphere of fair words and fair promises, but only in a knowledge and careful study of the difficulties of the situation.
I regard the atmosphere in which this Debate has taken place as a very hopeful augury. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) that he will find no party feeling on our side. The way in which we approach the Burmese problem will be an indication of our approach to even larger problems. I do not ask the Secretary of State to


make any very definite statement to-day but I do ask him to give us a sympathetic reply and to do his best to foster in this country the knowledge of Burma and its difficulties.

2.28 p.m.

Captain Peter Macdonald: This Debate should do a great deal to make known the recommendations of the Committee which has issued this very excellent report, and as one who had something to do with its publication I was very interested to see what the reactions to this report would be. One thing is certain, and that is that the members of this Committee have performed a signal service to this House and the country. It was not for the Committee to lay down a policy. In publishing this report they laid themselves open to criticism by recommending a reconstruction period of six years, (a) that the period is too long, and (b) that the period is too short. It is absolutely essential that a definite period should be stated. Whether the period is too long or too short must be decided by the Government as it is the Government who must be responsible for the future policy in Burma.
There is only one point that I want to make in regard to a very moderate criticism of the report by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). I think he laid too much stress on the recommendation in regard to State enterprise. It was not State enterprise which built up the prosperity of Burma, but private enterprise. And it is a part of the Committee's report that industry should be encouraged to return to Burma. We do not want industry to be discouraged by any thought that they are to be controlled entirely by the State. It is not very encouraging to business men who are going to stake their own and their shareholders' money in the future of a country, to know that they are to be completely controlled by the State. I hope that anybody who is prepared to invest money and capital in Burma, as in any other part of the British Empire, will not be discouraged in that way.

Mr. Tinker: But the hon. and gallant Member would put in a proviso, that private enterprise should see that the people working for them have decent conditions?

Captain Macdonald: I quite agree and there is machinery in every part of the Empire to ensure that they do have decent conditions. I am certain that this House would not for one moment support private enterprise without the additional safeguards laid down by Governments for the improvement of the conditions of the people engaged in industry. That is all I have to say about the Report. I am glad it has been published and I want to congratulate the Members who put so much time into framing it. I urge that the Government, at an early date, should state a policy for Burma, if my right hon. Friend cannot to-day state a definite policy for Burma, I hope he will not allow too much time to elapse before a definite statement on behalf of the Government is made. Therefore, I urge that a Cabinet Committee should be set up immediately to deal with this question of Burma, and that it should be kept as a really live subject from now on. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will give an assurance to that effect.

2.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Amery): I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) in congratulating the hon. Members who have taken so much trouble and given so much thought to producing a most interesting and, I think, valuable report, on the whole problem of the future of Burma. That Report and to-day's Debate have come very opportunely at a time when, in view of military developments in prospect, the whole question of Burma's future is already under active consideration by the Cabinet. Therefore, I can at once answer in the affirmative the request which my hon. and gallant Friend has just made to me.
The Debate has been distinguished, not only by a high level of constructive thought but also by the unanimous good will shown in every speech towards the people of Burma. I would only add that that good will and the desire to help the people of Burma forward are not of yesterday. From that point of view I am entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) in saying that we have no reason to apologise for our past conduct of Burma affairs, even if our future conduct will be framed in the light of a more modern outlook upon many problems, social and economic,


than was the outlook of pre-war years. In that connection I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair), in his very able speech at the outset, refuted that libel upon British Government in Burma, which is based on the suggestion that our Government must have been tyrannous and oppressive and in opposition to freedom, because the people of Burma did not rise in universal armed guerilla warfare against the Japanese. Nor did the people of Siam, an entirely independent country. The people of Burma did not do so, because we had not armed them and because, rightly or wrongly, perhaps, we regarded Burma as so entirely outside the field of possible war that we had neither attempted to encourage, except to a small extent, the military art in Burma, nor taxed the people of Burma to any considerable extent for their defence.
There is another libel, not upon the British Government but on the Burmese people, which suggests that at the moment of invasion they sided with the invader, maltreated and interfered with refugees, and in every way showed themselves hostile to our forces. It is perfectly true that a few thousand thakins, as they were called, and no doubt a number of dacoits, as the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) pointed out, may have created trouble during that time, but the great mass of the Burmese people did not show any hostility either to our Army or civil administrators. As the Governor pointed out, if they had been hostile very few would have escaped in that difficult time. I would remind the House, too, that at any rate several thousand Burmans and Anglo-Burmans served at that time, and have served since, in the Armed Forces of the Crown, absorbed to-day into the main structure of the Indian Army, so far as land troops are concerned, so far as the small Burmese Air Force is concerned, distributed but still serving effectively and gallantly in a good many theatres of war, and so far as the little Royal Naval Volunteer Force is concerned, continuously, actively and most effectively playing their part in the conduct of operations against the Japanese.
The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk and others have paid a tribute which is only too well deserved to the loyalty

of the Nagas, Chins, Kachins and other frontier tribes who, in face of a good deal of oppression and savage reprisals on the part of the Japanese, have consistently helped right through and made it possible for our relatively small regular Forces to hold the whole of a front practically as long as the Russian front in Europe. I have heard many stories of the gallantry of these levies and only shortness of time left to me prevents me mentioning some of them. At any rate it is quite clear that the economic weakness as well as the wishes of these tribal peoples will have to be considered. From that point of view I entirely sympathise with what was said, very wisely and cautiously, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Squadron Leader Donner).
I ought to have mentioned, perhaps, the fact that when the invasion took place certain Ministers—the Prime Minister, Finance Minister and others—and a good many Burmese officials came out with the Government and have been actively working with the Governor ever since. It is perfectly true that the Japanese have set up a facade of an independent Burma under a dictator and a one-party dictatorship, but I think the Burmese are not so stupid as not to be fully conscious of how little that facade is worth, side by side with the ruthless suppression and exploitation of their people by the Japanese, and what it has meant in poverty and distress, through inflation, and through wholesale requisitioning of labour, cattle, and materials. Nor can their national pride have been assuaged by the typical arrogance with which the Burmese have been treated throughout. I saw the other day that there was some attempt at a Burmese protest against the faces of senior Burmese officials being publicly slapped by Japanese officers under the rank of lieutenant-colonel. That gives some slight idea of the kind of Government under which the Burmese are groaning to-day. There was a rather remarkable article in "The Times" this morning which drew a very interesting picture of what Burma is suffering under Japanese brutality and under what it calls the terrible savagery of Japanese reprisals.
I would say, in refuting that libel against the people of Burma, that there is nothing further from our minds than to regard them as a hostile people. We be-


lieve that when the time comes they will welcome us as their liberators and it is certainly in that spirit we mean to return to Burma. There is no question on our part of hostility to the Burmese people or indiscriminate vengeance upon them. On the contrary, we shall go there in the spirit of friendship, good will and helpfulness. We desire, indeed, to make good what the people of Burma suffered in part, at any rate, through lack of our own defensive foresight in this matter. Nor, at any rate, so far as our good will in this matter is concerned, have the Burmese forfeited or impaired in any way their claim to our assistance in moving towards the goal of self-government which we have so repeatedly declared.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk went into the past history of these pledges it is perhaps only right that I should briefly follow him. He referred to the fact that as far back as 1931 one of my predecessors made it clear that the prospect of constitutional advance by Burma would not be prejudiced by separation from India. That meant that the objective of complete self-government was the same in both cases. It did not mean and could not possibly mean complete identity of method at every stage or complete simultaneity in their arrival at the goal. In fact, hon. Members are well aware that in consequence of the internal difficulties in India which prevented the federal provisions of the Act of 1935 from being implemented, India only attained self-government in the sphere of provincial Government. Burma, in 1937, received all the powers which by the Act of 1935 were to have been conferred on India, not only in the provinces but at the centre. Even further than that, though the spheres of defence and foreign policy were excluded constitutionally, in 1941, as the problem of defence became more fundamentally associated with every other problem of Government, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith set up a Council of Defence in which the Prime Minister, Finance Minister and Home Minister of the Burma Government were fully associated in the discussion of defence problems. It is quite true that even that did not wholly satisfy Burmese aspirations, and towards the close of 1941 the Prime Minister U Saw came here, and wanted to secure from His Majesty's Government a categorical pledge that im-

mediately at the end of the war an agreement should be arrived at for the setting up of Burma as a self-governing Dominion.
Even though I could not at that moment foresee the cataclysm which swept over Burma a few months later, I did not feel that I could give so categorical and precise an assurance, in an uncertain world, as was asked. I think the House will not feel that I was mistaken at that time. But I gave then, and I have repeated more than once since, a pledge, making our principles in this matter clear. I gave it again in April, 1943. It was that "our aim is to assist Burma to attain complete self-government as soon as circumstances permit," and I added that "present circumstances did not allow of a more precise statement." Are circumstances to-day such that they allow of a much more precise statement than could be given then? Let us consider what those circumstances are. It has been pointed out in this Debate that in our retreat we pursued a scorched-earth policy, in which a great shipping flotilla, the main artery of Burmese communications, was destroyed, the oil wells were practically wrecked, the lead mines, the port installations, the electrical apparatus, the railways—all that we had built up over the years—were destroyed. Since then the Japanese occupation has dispersed great amounts of elephants and cattle. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) is quite right in saying that you cannot destroy a rice field. But you may make it unusable for some time if you destroy by slaughter or rinderpest all the cattle with which it used to be worked.
What of the tasks of restoration after reconquest? An immense task will confront us. Is might describe it as being a task in two phases. There is, first, the phase of elementary restoration. At this moment we are feeding some 40,000 people in Northern Burma, and finding clothes for a much larger number. Cattle, the restoration of the main network of transport, roads, docks, and the provision of at any rate an indispensable minimum of equipment for agriculture—all these are a matter of immediate short-range restoration. Behind that lies the problem of long-range reconstruction. In respect to that we all feel about Burma, as we feel about this country, that it is


not merely a matter of going back to pre-war conditions, but of raising the social life of the country to a higher level, a level which may perhaps take more intimate regard of the wishes and immediate welfare of the Burmese people themselves, as well as of what you might call the general economic development of the country as a whole. On all these matters; the problem of industry, the problem of land policy—on which it will certainly be necessary to find ways and means of securing the Burmese cultivator on his holding, of recovering from non-agricultural purchasers the holdings that the Burmese cultivators used to work, and giving security and better means of access of credit in future—Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, to whose enthusiasm, vision, and sympathy for the Burmese people, sustained during these long, bitterly-trying years of exile, I should like to pay my tribute, has, with a keen team of officials, been working indefatigably. With that work Burmese Ministers and Burmese officials have been intimately associated.
The achievement of the end we have in view depends on a good many factors. There are, of course, first of all, the people of Burma themselves. As I have said, those of them who left Burma have been co-operating with the Governor during the years of exile; and co-operation and consultation with the Burmese must be an essential feature of reconstruction at every stage. The foundation of reconstruction of agriculture in Burma is the Burmese peasant himself. We have to set him on his feet. In saying that, I must point out that to get him on to his feet, to rebuild the economic foundations of Burma, requires help and assistance.

Mr. John Dugdale: Is there to be any White Paper or any other Government publication which will show what in fact Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith has done?

Mr. Amery: I will certainly consider that. As I have said, the whole matter is under active consideration by the Government. As was very truly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, the standard of life of the Burma peasant is, for Asiatic conditions, relatively a very high one; but that is because of the general economic and industrial conditions, to which other factors outside the Burmese themselves have contributed. Undoubtedly, we must do our best to

train the people of Burma in every respect to take over themselves, or at any rate to take an active part in, the modern development which had contributed to make Burma what it was at the moment of invasion. But without those other elements the Burmese standard of life would undoubtedly not be what it has been, and would certainly not be capable of being restored to what it has been.
The first element is the population of Burma. The next is the Indian element. There I must say that I rather regretted a somewhat dangerous passage in a report by my hon. Friend—with so much of which I agree—in which he spoke of the Indian exodus as having solved the major part of the problem in Burma, and leaving a clean sheet for Burma in future. Of the 1,000,000 and more Indian population of Burma, many resided in Southern Burma long before 1886. My hon. Friend rather left out of account the fact that the kingdom we conquered in 1886 was Upper Burma, and that Lower Burma, the country in which most of that population resided, was British for over a century. Of that 1,000,000, a large part have stayed in Burma. Of the others, the greater part wish to return to Burma, and will be essential to the economic recovery of Burma. I think it is a very dubious thing to talk of "the alien element which has been cleared for good out of the country."
It is perfectly true that the problem of land bought in foreclosing of debt will have to be considered, and that some scheme for repurchase at a reasonable figure will have to be worked out. But there can be no question of a policy of native xenophobia being carried out in Burma against a country like India, for reasons of geography and trade and defence. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) that we must envisage the problem of the defence of that part of the world as one. I cannot imagine that Burma could deal with these matters except by a reasonable measure of friendly co-operation with her greater neighbour. As a matter of fact, as part of these discussions on the future, very friendly and helpful conferences have taken place between the Burma Government and the Government of India, dealing with labour, immigration, indebtedness, and so on. I look forward to the Burma of the future working in full independence of India, but also in friendly


and fruitful co-operation with India. That is one element.
Another indispensable element in present conditions is European capital and technical skill. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight said just now, if capital is to return it must have some measure of security. Hon. Members, in their memorandum, have suggested ultimately some sort of trade treaty. That, of course, will have to be considered at the time. But, in the long run, the best security for British capital in Burma, as in other parts of the world, will be the good will of the people themselves, their conviction that that capital is given to help them to do what they cannot do for themselves, and to bring more wealth into the country than it takes out of the country. I believe that British capital is fully prepared to follow that course, and to do what is essential to bring the people of the country in greater measure into partnership on the financial and administrative side, and also to take measures to train more of the people to fill those technical positions which at present Burmese are not qualified to hold, and to fill which it is necessary to give facilities for training, whether they are in India or in this country. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has, in connection with India, made a most valuable and helpful experiment in bringing a series of batches of young Indians over here to get technical training. It has been a great success. I see no reason why something of the same sort should not be carried out in Burma as well.
There is another element which cannot be ignored either. That is His Majesty's Government in this country. Reference has been made to the assurances which have been given with regard to compensation—I might add that that is compensation for all who have suffered in Burma, not merely Europeans but Indians and Burmese. There is this general promise of assistance towards setting right the damage caused by enemy invasion. More than that is needed. There must be some measure of assistance towards the cost of reconstruction, towards the deficit problem in the period immediately following liberation. If assistance is given by the taxpayer, it is obvious that it must be accompanied by some measure of control over expenditure. All these matters are under the most active and detailed

consideration by His Majesty's Government.
All these problems, from defence and foreign policy down to financial problems, involving the co-operation of this country, are being most closely considered. In all these matters our objective is perfectly clear. It is a prosperous, contented people on a high level of well-being and capable of sustaining, as soon as possible, the responsibility of conducting their own affairs. What are yet unknown, owing to the war, are the detailed steps and the time-table of such policy. Obviously, so long as Burma is the scene of active military operations, or the base of active military operations, there must be a period of military control. The first steps in relief, in restoration, in reconstruction, will be carried out by Civil Affairs officers, men with experience of civil administration in the past, working under the direct authority of the military commander-in-chief. That phase has already begun over a considerable area in Northern Burma and is working, I think, very successfully. Nobody can yet tell how long that particular phase will last, and the extent of reconstruction which will be achieved during that phase will obviously affect the nature of the civil administration to be set up, and the political situation, after that phase is ended and when a further phase has begun.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes on to the next phase, I think it would be useful if he would elucidate the statement he made that this phase will be conducted under the aegis of the military authorities—under the Commander-in-Chief. Do I understand it will be under the United Nations, or under the British Government?

Mr. Amery: Under Admiral Mountbatten, who is the Commander-in-Chief designated by the United Nations. His operational plans, no doubt, are considered by the Combined Chiefs of Staff, but the direct administrative problem is handled by him and by the actual military commander on the spot. The Civil Affairs officers, at present in uniform, carry on their work—with their knowledge of local conditions—under the responsibility of the military authorities. All that period ahead of us is, as has been truly said by more than one hon. Member, still wrapped in great uncertainty. Even when Burma is


liberated, we shall not be able to tell what the situation will be in Malaya, Siam and China, and what effect that will have on the situation in Burma itself.
I would say in conclusion that with so many factors undetermined at present, it would be unwise at this stage to commit ourselves to publicly-announced programmes which we might afterwards be forced, with some discredit, to go back on. My hon. Friends in their Memorandum only ask for such a declaration "as soon as military operations have sufficiently progressed." Well, I think they will have to progress a stage further. In the same way, my hon. Friends ask for a fixed term of six years, and that has occupied a good deal of attention in this debate this afternoon. I will not repeat either the effective argument in favour of such a term, as used by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, nor the argument used against it by the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke, but what I will do is to quote the report of my hon. Friends which says:
The arguments on this question are almost evenly balanced.
I would say that they are so evenly balanced that only circumstances which are yet in the uncertain offing can decide in which direction it will be wise to tilt the balance when the time comes to declare our intentions, when, again to use the words we have already used,
at any rate some of the navigation lights are back in their places.
All these considerations are as fully in the minds of His Majesty's Government as in those of the House, and, in considering them further, what has been said in this Debate will undoubtedly be of value to His Majesty's Government. It may well be that the time will come—perhaps not in too distant a future—when the course of events will be clearer and when an announcement may be not only possible, but valuable in assuring good will and co-operation. I doubt if that time has yet come. There is an old adage about not disposing of the bear's skin before you have killed it. In the present circumstances, while we are in death grips with the major bear, and not yet in a position to devote our whole attention to killing the lesser bear, the precise nature of the lining and trim-

mings to be given to that bear's fur is hardly a matter for a public announcement which is likely to be effective in creating the psychological results which we desire in the minds of those to whom it is addressed. For a public declaration there has to be kept in mind not only the substance of the declaration, but the question of the right timing.
I have attempted to put to the House the general position of the Government. What I have said does not affect in any way the broad objective and outline of our policy of progressive advance towards complete self-government within the Empire. The Atlantic Charter, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, is, after all, only confirmation of a course of progress which has been developing and broadening within this British Empire towards the Commonwealth of the future. The war has inevitably interposed an obstacle and a postponement in that field, as it has in the field of freedom and variety in our own life at home. In neither case will the cessation of hostilities immediately and automatically restore the pre-war situation. But the purpose and instinct of returning to the natural course of our progress remain unchanged. They are, if I may say so, like a gyroscope which, however much deflected, always tends to return to its true bearings.

Orders of the Day — RURAL HOUSING

Mr. David Eccles: The House has good reason to be grateful to those hon. Members who raised the question of the future of Burma, and I can only hope that the House will be equally well served by a discussion on rural housing. In last Thursday's Debate the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Donald Scott) made a very interesting speech on this subject, and I will do my best to live up to his example. All the speakers in that Debate made an appeal for vigorous action to provide adequate homes for every family in the land. They based their appeal on grounds of common decency and on what we owe to every citizen. I agree with all that was said, but, to-day, I am asking the House to support a demand for rural housing, not only on these general grounds, but as an essential part of the Government's programme of food production. There is no passage in the Gracious Speech which will do more to encourage rural areas than the


reference to the Government's intention to maintain a high level of food production, but good intentions are not everything. Food cannot be produced without farm workers, and farm workers must have houses—houses of a kind in which their wives are prepared to make their homes. If hon. Members wish to see the Government's production programme fulfilled, they must insist on adequate housing to match the labour requirements of that programme.
What will the situation be at the end of the war? The Women's Land Army, to whom we owe a very great deal, will begin to disband. The prisoners of war will want to go home. A great gap in the labour force, which to-day is stretched to the full, will have to be filled by men who cannot he billeted here, there and everywhere, like land girls and Italian prisoners have been billeted, and, unless more and better cottages are available for the men returning from the war, then I do not care how attractive to the farmer the Government's agricultural policy may be, that policy will fail, because the farm workers will not be there to carry it out.
The supply and convenience of rural dwellings can be increased in two ways. We can build new cottages or recondition old ones. Let me say at once that what the young farm worker and his wife would prefer is a modern cottage, of modern lay-out and with modern equipment. If we could give them new cottages they would willingly hand over their picturesque ruins to the attentions of sentimental week-enders and tired business men. We want, in the rural areas, all the new building we can get, and we want some temporary houses as well. I hope that, when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply, she will tell us something of the Government's plans for new building, and whether we are to get any of these Swedish wooden houses which are thought to be very suitable in some country districts.
The practical questions are how much building labour and materials will be available in the countryside immediately after the war, and what is the best use to be made of these resources? In the county to which I belong, a county which has not been heavily bombed, it is recognised that the bulk of the mobile building labour should be concentrated upon the reconstruction of blitzed cities. That being the case, we have to rely on that

sturdy individual the small country builder. I think most hon. Members could point to at least one small builder whose business has been paralysed by the loss of one or two key-men to the Forces or to the big contractors. Quite often the men who went to work for the big contractors did not, when that job was done, go home again to get on with the repairs that were piling up on the farm buildings or cottages, but were then directed into the Army. It is absolutely vital that my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Works should play fair with the small builder when demobilisation begins. I hope that the key-men will be returned to the small builder, so that his nucleus of immobile labour can be built up again into a compact and efficient unit. When that is done, what is the best use that we can make of the small builder? I do not believe it would be advisable to turn him over entirely to building new cottages. Speed, and results achieved at the smallest expense of labour and materials, are what we want, and I think that we could rehouse more form workers in a shorter time if a substantial proportion of the building labour available were put on to reconditioning.
It is a vigorous campaign of reconditioning which I particularly wish to urge on the Government to-day. There are many old cottages which could quickly be reconditioned with less labour and materials than it would take to build a new cottage. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) was quite right when he pointed out last Thursday that many demolition orders have been served on properties which, with a little ingenuity and the advice of a good architect, could be made quite liveable. This is a delicate subject, but I hope we will hear something about the demolition orders when the Parliamentary Secretary replies. Up and down the country, we have some good modern cottages with modern facilities. We also have some old cottages that have been reconditioned—about one per cent. of the total number of rural dwellings. Then we have some modern cottages, many of them council cottages, with no modern facilities. I can imagine nothing more exasperating than living in a house in which there are taps from which no water flows and wires from which comes no electricity. But by far the largest number of our cottages are


old, dingy and damp, need new doors and floors and have neither water, sanitation nor electricity. A substantial number of these old cottages have sound walls and dry sites, with good gardens, and are admirable material for reconditioning.
If the House will allow me, I would like to turn aside for a moment to consider why it is that there are so many old cottages that need to be reconditioned. Many of them are in a disgraceful state. They belong to private owners. Have these owners wilfully neglected their duty? It is a question to which we, on this side of the House, who believe in property and the duties of property, must find an answer. In a few cases there may well have been neglect, but only where the owner possessed capital or had an income derived from the towns, from some business or other urban pursuit. If he had to rely on the land for his livelihood, he simply could not get the money to keep his property in repair, and there can be no doubt that the underlying cause of the bad condition of rural housing is the long depression in British agriculture. When farming does badly, wages are low, and out of low wages only low rents can be paid. When farming does badly, profits are low, and out of low profits the equipment of an industry can neither be kept in repair nor renewed. Whenever I go into a bad cottage, or see a village woman carrying water from the well, two words come into my mind, "Free Trade." There is the evidence of the semi-bankrupt condition to which British agriculture was reduced by generations of competition from imported food. That must not happen again.
I venture to put this point, because there is current an entirely false argument. It is said, "Rural property is in a disgraceful condition. The owner must have neglected his duty and, therefore, the State should take over that property." But it was Government agricultural and taxation policy which crippled the owners, and what can be more cynical than for one and the same institution first to render a man incapable of carrying out his duty and then condemn him for his dereliction. These difficulties of the rural property owner were recognised before the war in the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. By that Act the county council, if it chose, could make to the owner of a rural dwelling a grant of £100 or two-

thirds of the cost of reconditioning, which ever was the less. Certain conditions were imposed. The value of the cottage after reconditioning was not to exceed £400 and it had to be let to a rural worker for 20 years at the agricultural rent—3s. a week in Wiltshire—plus 4 per cent. on the owner's contribution. The House will realise that this increase in rent did not permit the owner to pay both interest on his capital outlay and cover the cost of repairs. Since 1926 building costs have risen. We have to pay Purchase Tax on baths and stoves and other fixtures, which enter largely into re-equipment; not only have building costs risen but the standard of amenities has risen also. The luxuries of yesterday are the necessities of to-day, and no one now disputes that the financial provisions of the Act require upward revision.
As long ago as last May my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health, replying to a question by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), said he hoped, in due course, to submit to Parliament the Government's proposals for the amendment of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. That was six months ago and I think we are now entitled to ask the Government for a definite statement. Have they a Bill on the stocks and when will they introduce it? In any new Bill I would like to see the operative figures of grant and of value after reconditioning doubled—the grant-in-aid raised from £100 to £200 and the value, after reconditioning, to be up to £800. I would also like to see at least two administrative changes. It does not make for good administration that the rural district council, which is the housing authority, should administer the other housing Acts while the Housing (Rural Workers) Act should be left to the county council. It is a difficult matter, but I am in favour of giving the whole of the administration of housing to the rural district councils. They have a more intimate knowledge of the villages and hamlets concerned, and I wish to avoid a conflict between new building and reconditioning, which tends to arise when the rural district is responsible for the one and the county council for the other. The argument in favour of the county council is that their technical staff is superior to that of the rural district. That is not always true. There are many rural district councils which are efficient. But if there are cases where they


are weak, I hope that the Minister will encourage joint housing committees on which the technical staff can be pooled. The thing to be aimed at is co-operation between county and rural district and the avoidance of conflicts, which do nobody any good.
The second administrative change I consider very important. The grant should be obligatory. By that I mean, that when a scheme of reconditioning has been passed by the local authority's advisers, the grant should follow automatically and not be at the discretion of the local authority, as it is at present. It is import-tant to define clearly what we mean by rural worker and to apply that definition over the whole country. I ask for the grant to be obligatory because I want the owners' obligation to recondition to be most strictly enforced. The time has passed when the owner of a cottage ought to think he is doing the farm worker a good turn if he puts in electricity or water, He ought to regard it as his duty to provide these amenities, as it is now his duty to stop a leak in the roof if one occurs. Just as soon as financial help is available, and the help must be adequate, I hope the local authorities will use their powers to the full to take over rural dwellings which owners refuse to recondition.
I hope that I have made a case for a new Housing (Rural Workers) Act and that the Parliamentary Secretary will not tell us that some delay must be incurred and that that will not matter because a large quantity of labour and materials will not be available in the near future. Small beginnings are valuable in the countryside. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary lives in Warwick Square. If a house is reconditioned in a London square the occupants of the other houses would not know or desire to know what had been going on. That would be a matter of indifference to them, but in a village, if a pair of cottages are reconditioned they become the sole topic of conversation round the pump and in the pub. I suggest to the Government that if they will give us the new Bill quickly, we can begin, with whatever labour is available, to recondition here and there. We should give the farmworker and his wife tangible evidence that better houses are on the way, and it would put owners on their mettle. Both these things are well worth doing.
I would like to say a word about rural housing as a vital element in the background of agriculture. When the war broke out most of the equipment of British farming—and I include farm workers' cottages in that equipment—was obsolete. That was not the fault of the farmers but was due to a long period of low, fluctuating prices, and the miracle is the volume of food which they have produced with that obsolete equipment. Equipment which is obsolete when the basic wage is 40s. or lower, is very much more obsolete when the basic wage is 65s. or over. That is the real problem facing agriculture. During the war it has only been possible to cover the sharp rises in the labour cost in farming by giving the farmer more for his products than he got before. After the war we mean to maintain this wage and, I hope, increase it, but I do nor think that a policy of subsidy on the prices which the farmer gets for his products, whether produced with efficient equipment or not, will be the the best way of laying out the taxpayers' money. I think a much sounder policy would be a national drive to improve the background of farming, that is, the common services—water, electricity, and housing. The nation could not make a finer investment, and one of the forms that investment should certainly take would be decent homes for the farm worker and his wife.
I wonder sometimes whether the overwhelming urban population of the country realise what the farm worker has done in this war. Does industry know the hours that are worked on a farm? Sixty and 70 hours are not unusual where milk is produced, for we have not bred a cow that will take a rest on the seventh day. During last month, the month of November, on how many days did the farm worker get home with dry clothes? In agriculture we have no canteens, no "music-while-you-work," no pithead baths, it is a hard life; but those who have a fair chance on the land always love the land. In making this appeal to the Government for better rural housing, both rebuilding and reconditioning, in the right proportion to the resources available, I am paying my tribute to scores of old friends on the farms in Wiltshire who have worked silently and steadily throughout this war, and whose wisdom, patience and skill deserve the appreciation of this House.

3.32 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: I think the House is under a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) who has raised this very important subject in a way which must appeal to all hon. Members. I only wish that he had been a little stronger in his declamation against bad housing. There is no feature in our national life which causes more pain and distress to one who loves this country than the shocking conditions under which people are housed in rural areas in all parts of Britain. I do not think there is a subject which is more worthy of the attention of hon. Members because, whether we represent directly or indirectly a rural area, or an industrial area, we represent this great countryside, which is a source of pride and interest to all people who love our native land. After all, the countryside is the backbone of our country, and without a prosperous and happy countryside there can be no happy and prosperous Britain.
Something has been said about the relation of housing to agriculture, the relation of housing to labour supply, and the relation of labour supply to the production of food on the land. It is all one question. We really cannot divorce this. We cannot say there is a serious problem of housing in the countryside, and then go away and come back in six months and talk about the labour problem in the countryside. It is all one piece, and it is the degradation of the countryside that we are examining when we talk of the conditions under which some millions of people live. It is very difficult to sort out from the rural population the number of people associated indirectly or directly with agriculture, but I have figures here which reveal the general conditions in the countryside in a way that is worthy of more minute critical attention by this House. The report from which I am quoting is a good one and it tells us that in 1919 there were roughly 1,750,000 dwellings, in which were accommodated somewhere about 7,500,000 people—I mention these figures because there is something more than figures in this but figures, too, are important—an average of 4.3 persons per house. I would ask hon. Members to remember that many of these houses are very, very small and in a house containing four and a half persons

there might often be two persons per room, because many of these are only two-roomed houses. From the stand-point of accommodation the situation was bad enough at the end of the last war in 1919. Well, for 20 years we had ample time to repair the ravages of the last war—as we shall be called upon to repair the ravages of this one—and we had an opportunity to build sufficient houses to improve the accommodation of the countryside. We barely did so. It is true that we built a large number of houses, 800,000 is the figure given—20 per cent. of the whole building programme of this country in those 20 years—and in rural areas we reduced the figure from 4.3 persons per house to roughly 3½. Looking at the figures one would say that there is not very much wrong in 3½ persons per house, but when you see the houses and the accommodation they provide, those figures really reveal a shocking condition.
Now we have come to 1944, with five years' leeway to make up, for no building has taken place in the countryside in the last five years. The right hon. Gentleman (the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) made a valiant effort to arouse public opinion, I believe, and to arouse all those connected with building in this country. I think his effort was highly praiseworthy, but his programme was all too modest. I think he proposed to build 3,000 houses—a drop in the ocean. How many of the 3,000 have been built? Have one-third been built?

Mr. Colegate: Over 2,000 have been built.

Mr. Grenfell: I do not know the exact number. But the situation has been worsening every day, with a growing need for more and better accommodation for the man who tills the soil. He is a most important person in the countryside, but he is not the only person within the ambit of this problem of the population of the rural areas. We have been told that the houses would cost too much, that there was not sufficient material, that there was not sufficient labour, that there was not sufficient land available for the erection of additional houses. I refuse to accept those apologies. After all that this country has done during the war in building, in the construction of war equipment from material gathered from the ends of the world, brought by land and


sea over thousands of miles then we are told that we could not build 3,000 houses to relieve the pressure on the accommodation of the population of the countryside because we had not either the material or the labour or the financial resources. Ridiculous.
It is a shame upon the House. Men of all parties here have been concerned about the countryside. There is no more beautiful country in the world than ours, but there are seasons when the countryside looks well and seasons when it is not so good looking. Last week, life in West Wales and in other places was especially depressing because of the abnormal rainfall and climatic conditions. Even the slums of London are not so bad as some of those slums of the countryside. The hon. Member for Chippenham spoke with much charm, and I am blundering through my speech without much skill or judgment. Somebody will probably pay compliments to us both, and then nothing more will be heard of this matter until the next King's Speech. The programme of rural housing will be delayed and mortal decay will set in among our rural population.
The mining industry is facing a terrific problem solely because of the difficulty of maintaining its manpower. What will be the supply of labour for work on farms, and for that ambitious programme which the Minister read out to us a few days ago? Unless they get more satisfaction out of country life the labourers will not be there, and will go more and more to the slums of the cities, which are so often held up as horrible examples in relation to the joys and contentment of a countryside existence. I hope the House will make up its mind to-day. Who is the responsible Minister? If it is the Minister of Health, let him face up to his responsibility and let the House tell him what we want him to do. We cannot play with this problem; we cannot put it off any longer. If we do it will become insoluble. I am assured that there are 8,000,000,000 bricks in stock in this country to-day. At 20,000 bricks per house, which is a good-sized house, we can build 400,000 houses. There are also ample stocks of cement and lime, and I am assured by those who know best that there can even be found enough timber. Yet there is always this convenient vehicle of postponement in the words, "Materials

cannot be obtained." I make this prediction: there will be no more building materials in stock in 12 months than there are to-day. There will be less building labour when the war comes to an end unless the building industry is reorganised and a start is made at once with training men for their new duties.

Mr. Molson: Will the hon. Gentleman say where he proposes to get the labour? Does he propose to call men back from the Armed Forces, or from London, where they are rebuilding and repairing blitzed houses?

Mr. Grenfell: I hope the hon. Member will not make London his excuse. Men have not been coming into London until recently, whereas this excuse of the shortage of labour has been given to us for years. I do not know for how long men will be required to make good war damage. Further, damage is not yet ended, but that excuse has been offered to us long before there were V.1's or V.2's, or any other destructive weapon of that nature. There is abundant supply of labour, and there has been for a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Small builders in the rural areas are being crushed out of their job. They will not be allowed to return to their job unless the House makes up its mind to use them. These builders do not require a large quantity of materials, or a large labour staff. There is not much to choose between rural areas in any part of Britain—they all have rather backward and miserable places in which to live—and in these areas the small builder could play his part. Given a little encouragement the small builder could gather a crew of men around him and build a house or two in the next year or two. Multiply that effort by the effort of many other small builders——

Mr. Tree: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that at any time in the last five years there has been labour anywhere in the country for rural housing?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, and, furthermore, skilled labour is now being employed on machine tending. Do not leave this work purely to the local authorities. I know many of the kind of people who sit on these local authorities, and the houses they live in, and I know that the problem will not be solved by their efforts. The


High Court of Parliament itself must give directions. It must say, to-day or to-morrow, "Parliament will not endure the continuation of bad housing; the problem must be tackled now." If a suitable quantity of bricks and other building materials were made available to small builders who could find men to work with them thousands of houses could be built before the end of next year without drawing men from the Armed Forces. There are elderly men who could work on building operations at the moment. It could be done if we made up our minds to do it. I was a member of the Forestry Commission for 13 years, and I travelled widely in England, Scotland and Wales. I was never satisfied with the miserable schools I used to see, knowing the long journeys which children made to and from their homes in all weathers, and with the vast amount of preventable ill-health which I saw, due mainly to our unwillingness to face up to the housing problem.
I would not neglect the housing of our urban population, but if I were asked to choose I should pay first attention to the rural areas, where people are less capable of exercising their influence with local councils than people in the urban areas. I ask the Minister not only to provide more houses but better houses. It is a crime that "jerry-built" houses should be built in this country. When I heard the hon. Member opposite talk I concluded that he had no experience of this kind of thing at all. He talked about reconditioning. The only way to recondition some of these houses is to raze a very large proportion of them. Has any hon. Member tried to insert a damp course in an old house, and how has he succeeded? That is not the most economical way to provide housing accommodation.
You must make up your minds to build new houses. I will not say they all need to be large. Looking at the change in the incidence of births and deaths at present, perhaps the house of the next 40 or 50 years need not be larger in dimensions on the average than those of the last 40 or 50 years, but unless we build houses of better quality we shall never get rid of slumdom. I beg the House not to accept this idea of reconditioning and patching up as a substitute for building more and better houses. It has often

been said in the last year or two that the countryside is a shockingly inconvenient place to live in, far from shops, far from your place of work, far from your school, far from your church, far from everywhere, and even at this day conveyances give a very bad service to people who have to travel long distances. But that kind of inconvenience is nothing like that of living in a house with no sanitation and no water supply. A quarter of the parishes of the country have no piped water supply. What is the use of providing taps and wires for conveying the energy with no water and no juice to run through them. The problem is not insoluble. There is not a tithe of the difficulty of the war organisations connected with it. We can build houses for all our people. We can now make a bold beginning with the housing of the people on the countryside. We can make up our minds and insist that the Minister shall bring in a new Bill, soon to be implemented, which will put the necessary resources in material and labour into equipping houses on the countryside fit for people to live in.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman shows how keenly he feels on the urgency of dealing with the problem of rural housing. I think he was right to stress the importance of the main services, such as water, drainage and electricity. Since I returned from New Zealand I have made a special point of examining the facilities in my own constituency. I was aware of them before, but, coming back afresh and so getting a new view of the problem, I am bound to say that the housing conditions, and all that goes with housing in rural England at present, are a great disgrace to those of all parties who have been concerned with for a long time and, in making this fresh start now, I believe we can go right ahead. May I quote from the report of the Spalding rural district council, only 100 miles from London?
There are hundreds of premises where the water supply is unsatisfactory or inadequate. Twenty-six samples of water have been submitted for analysis, 18 from private pumps and wells, which are unsuitable for drinkng purposes, the majority showing evidence of sewage contamination.
Drainage. Only a very small percentage of the houses are provided with water closets, and in most cases the accommodation is of the


pail or vault type. Nuisances are continually arising through the disposal of faecal matter in the pail closets. This is particularly serious at houses where the gardens are small, as they quickly become saturated with sewage and are a constant source of nuisance from flies and effluvia.
I am disappointed at finding, in the housing manual issued this year under the auspices of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works, even yet some suggestion that this old earth closet is to remain. I refer to page 24.
If in any area a piped water supply is not available, an earth closet may be inevitable. It should be planned so as to be entered from the open air under cover. The difficulties in the management of earth closets can be much reduced if the authority provide their tenants with a leaflet or handbook.
Entering the new world after the war, we are determined to go forward with a piped water supply for our rural dwellings and a water-borne system of sewage, and we are not taking an earth closet and a leaflet from the Government.
These are the problems that we must ask the Government as a whole to face. The need is very great indeed. In the area of the rural district council from whose report I have read, out of 8,000 houses it is estimated that 1,000 or 1,500 require replacement. To that figure must be added houses for those returning from the Forces. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) refer to the place which the small builder is to take in this great task of housing our people. This is borne out by the very valuable Report on Rural Housing. I believe the small builder can make a most valuable contribution, but he has got to be helped. He works on the job with his men, sometimes only three or four of them. Often he drives the lorry. How wise the Chancellor of the Duchy was to start building houses in rural areas, because it was an experiment, on the scale of 12 inches to the foot, in showing how houses can be built. This Report on Rural Housing tells us that one of the difficulties in the way of getting the job done was that the poor small builder, on whom we must rely so largely, had to deal with no fewer than 14 departments, bodies or persons before he could get going. I believe that as the result of that experiment things have improved, but they are bad enough. I appeal to the Minister of Health to initiate a programme of exactly the same dimensions, 3,000 houses in rural areas—a small enough programme yet it means

3,000 more contented families. Let us plan for such a programme again, with new vigour to see whether, in the light of the experience and lessons of the past, we can move forward more swiftly with the provision of good houses, such as can house contented families.
If we are to get people to live in the countryside and get British agriculture back on to its feet, it will not be done on the basis of country slums. Often a rural cottage which looks so attractive as you whisk by in a motor car is an absolute slum, far worse than anything you can find in the city—lacking in sanitation, with window spaces too small, no damp-proof course and no piped water supply. When the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) said there was labour available, he was interrupted. I think he rather over-stated the case. On the other hand, I am with him part of the way on these terms. He is right about bricks being in stock now. On the main line from London to Peterborough large stocks of bricks can be seen. There are not a lot of brick-layers, but there are some, and in places one sees them replacing the low brick walls from which iron railings were taken. They could be better employed building main walls for houses. Timber is a great difficulty. Therefore, let us have concrete floors. They are unpopular, for the moment, but when wood becomes available let us cover them and thus give the dwellers in rural cottages parquet flooring.
I appeal to those who are responsible to make a start now on a limited scale. We do not want the Government to sit down and say, "Materials are difficult, labour is difficult, everything is difficult, and we won't try at all." The Government must make clear which Department is responsible. I have already referred to the 14 persons, Departments and bodies to whom the small builder has to go. He has not time for that. We up here at Westminster know the nice difference there is between the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the Ministry of Health, but, as you move away from Westminster, all these Government Departments are lumped together and called "They," and "They" are regarded as obstructions. I would like to see the responsibility rest with the Ministry of Health. After all, the Ministry of Health


was expensively educated by the country after the last war to deal with the housing problem, and I do not think that the country, having educated one Department to do the job, desires to spend its money now on educating the Ministry of Works or the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The Ministry of Works is the Department which must be charged with the emergency and temporary housing schemes, and all of us will wish my right hon. Friend the new Minister the greatest possible success in that. As he is thinking of allocating the temporary houses, we ask him not to overlook the needs of the rural areas.
Overcrowding can be just as great in the countryside as it can be in a bombed area. The losses in the bombed areas have been by enemy destruction. The losses in the countryside have been due to the fact that we started with worn-out houses, and for five years we have overcrowded them and racked them for all they are worth by putting into them larger numbers than ever before, and it has been more and more difficult to secure repairs. Repairs have been effective or non-effective according to the distance of houses from the big centres of population. The result is that it is the rural areas which need the greatest rehabilitation. I join with the hon. Member for Gower in his desire for new houses. I believe that we have enough work in hand to build new houses at once to be able to leave reconditioning on one side. The great need is to get up new houses of some kind. Let us try to make a plan to build a place for everybody who has to live in rural areas so that they can have their own roofs and their own front doors, and let us do this at the earliest possible moment. In making that our ambition, we shall prove our desire to bring back to the countryside that prosperity which we all desire.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Horabin: I agree with the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) that housing conditions in the rural areas are really shocking. In my area of North Cornwall there is an acute shortage of houses. When it was announced that 3,000 rural cottages were to be built, my constituents hoped that there would be some alleviation of

their lot in this respect, but I am afraid that to-day they are "browned-off" about it. The shortage of houses in rural areas is not due entirely to the war, although the war has accentuated it. The shortage was acute before the war. In some villages in North Cornwall, it was impossible for people to get married, because no houses were available. When they did get married, in some villages the husband had to live with his people and the wife with her people. That is a dreadful state of affairs to exist in a civilised country. It is not only a question of the shortage of houses. I have been shocked as I have gone round my constituency, particularly during the last few months, to see the conditions of the houses that exist. Slums in the country are worse than the slums in some of the worst of our slum towns. People do not notice them so much, because the immediate surroundings are more beautiful than those in the towns. The cottages are damp, the accommodation is wholly inadequate for a family, the roofs are often in a shocking condition, there is no sanitation of a reasonable kind, and there is no piped water. There are villages of 200 or 300 people in North Cornwall where people have to walk 250 yards in order to get water. Sanitation is virtually non-existent in the sense that it should be understood in a civilised country.
What is to be done about this housing problem? I agree that if it is possible to build houses at the present moment, everything should be done to do it. I should like to see carried out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston that the Government should start to build another 3,000 cottages in the rural areas. The important thing is that when we get down to rebuilding there should be a fair deal as between the rural areas and the town areas. By that, I mean that the rural areas should have an equal priority over materials and labour. I agree that the smaller builder is the backbone of building in the rural areas. At the present moment his labour has been redirected away from him to the large contractor. The first step to be taken is that that labour should be redirected back to him. Until that has been done, we shall not get effective building in the rural areas.
There is an admirable report published by the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of


the Ministry of Health, and they make the suggestion, which I think should be carried out at the earliest possible moment, that there should be a thorough survey of existing rural houses. The houses should be divided into four categories: those that are fit for habitation, those that require structural alterations, those that require reconditioning and those which ought to be demolished and replaced. I am sure that if that survey is carried out thoroughly, it will be found that not 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 houses will have to be built in the next 10 or 12 years, but something in excess of 5,000,000, if the people of our country are to be decently housed. There is another point. If we are to maintain a balance between our urban and our rural populations, it is essential that the standard of housing in the rural areas should be the same as that in the towns. Hon. Members have already suggested that that means carrying out the recommendation of the Scott Committee that there should be piped water in every village and cheap electricity at the same price as in the towns. It also means indoor sanitation. With the modern equipment which is available and which we have been using for laying cables along our roads, the work could be carried out quickly, and I believe cheaply, if the job was tackled properly.
Then, of course, there comes the question of rents. I saw some of those 3,000 rural cottages that were built in my area about six or seven months ago. They were then standing empty because the rents were too high for agricultural populations in that locality. If we are to build houses for the agricultural workers, it is essential that the rents should be such as they can afford to pay. As the Rural Housing Sub-Committee says, the houses must be let at rents somewhere between 7s. and 8s. per week, plus rates. In order to do that, the country has to face paying a larger subsidy for rural houses than it does for town houses. That is the duty that the community owes to the rural population, who are living in the country with all the disadvantages implied in living in the country, in the interests of the community. They are there to produce our foodstuffs, and it is right that we should compensate them by paying adequate subsidies to give them decent houses. If we do not, we shall find further migration from the country into our towns.

4.14 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: The House has heard from all sides requests for improved housing conditions in rural areas, but this Amendment asks the attention of the Government to the Housing (Rural Workers) Act which is confined to reconditioning and assisting the repair of existing houses. It is primarily for that purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is no Amendment before the House."] I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to the Amendment on the Paper, which is:
But, while welcoming the statement that progress will be made in fulfilling the urgent task of providing additional housing accommodation, humbly regret that the Gracious Speech makes no mention of amendments to the Housing (Rural Workers) Act.
—and I still think that that is the case that we should wish to see put in the rural districts. We were under the impression that, in order to make the previous Housing (Rural Workers) Act come up to date and of use, in modern conditions and prices, it was necessary that such an Amendment should be introduced, and that we should have it embodied as soon as possible. Enough has been said to show the conditions in rural districts, after four years of war the redirection of the labour staff of local builders and the enormous increase in some cottages of evacuees from the bombed areas, who were put into houses to which they were not accustomed. I must say that some of them were in very bad conditions and suffered desperately. Now, wherever one goes, one finds men being asked to live in houses which are not fit for a man who is qualified to be a skilled worker on the land.
I would urge that we should concentrate, if we can, on the White Paper on the National Water Policy, which deals with the problem of rural water supplies as applied to rural housing. It says that the Government propose to invite Parliament to pass a law in the present Session, and the text of the Bill will be available. Reference was also made to that matter in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. Further, in the same White Paper it points out that the purpose of the Bill will be to bring the service into line with the housing service proposed. It will not bring it into line, unless we have the facilities to improve existing houses, to build further houses and to introduce, so


far as we can, water supplies and electricity
We should also take full advantage—I do not think this point has been mentioned in the discussion—of the emergency water and electricity supplies which have been put into camps, factories and airfields practically in every part of our country. It is absolutely essential that the Service Departments who have expended the taxpayers' money for those water supplies and so on should see that the facilities are made available to the local authorities. Water could then be given to all groups of houses in rural areas at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) asked whether the administration should be carried out by the rural district council or by the county council. In the Hob-house Report, and in the statistics which appear, the most astonishing variation is shown in the various counties. The counties that did best have improved accommodation by means of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. Devonshire adopted the Act, with a very high percentage. The ones that were administered by the county councils seem to have a better record than those administered by the district councils.

Sir Percy Hurd: Success was only achieved in Devonshire because of the full measure of co-operation which existed between the county council and the rural districts.

Sir R. Glyn: I do not mean for a single moment that there should not be the closest co-operation between county councils and rural districts but it has to be remembered that the initiative must come from the owners of the houses, who do not submit their ideas so readily to their immediate neighbours as to that further off authority the county council. As long as that remains the position, it is essential that the owner who wishes to improve his property should be able to apply to the county council, and the Ministry of Health should take steps to see that there is that co-operation between the county councils and the rural districts, in order to get the utmost benefit from both forms of administration.
There is one thing about which I feel very strongly. I hope the House will agree with me that modern transport has

had one effect in bringing the most diverse types of dwelling into localities where our forefathers used the only material which was to their hand. Nothing distresses me so much as to go through a Cotswold village and to see among the lovely stone houses, bricks from Fletton and tiles from Wales. The thing screams at you and disgusts the people themselves, while all the time there are available in all parts of the country skilled quarrymen who could well be employed. What you want in the rural districts is to feel that, out of the very soil and rock underneath, you have built up dwellings which do not affect one adversely because one feels that they fit in, melt into, the whole landscape.
In my constituency we have stone houses and I have had a sort of survey made as to how many of these old houses have been condemned, under a demolition order by a rural district council. I think it is rather disastrous that under the present law it is not essential for a rural district council to have the technical opinion of an architect before a demolition order is made. There are many admirable surveyors who do very good work for rural district councils—I have nothing against them—but they are not architects. There is nothing to say that a clerk to a rural district council should be trained in architecture and construction and it is easy to make a demolition order. There are, in all the Southern counties of England, houses in a poor state, which have magnificent walls, well-sited and with good gardens, sometimes with poor roofs and windows that are too small, some miserably so, some not. But I would sooner live in a Cotswold house than a brick villa. One is built by craftsmen to keep out the weather, the other not always. I should like to see everything done to encourage again these old rural crafts. We require the same sort of dwelling as we formerly had. Far more people require to be trained in the construction of a staircase than seem to be the case at present. Some modern staircases which have been put in are hopeless. You cannot get furniture up them.

Mr. George Griffiths: The hon. Member would not agree that small windows should continue?

Sir R. Glyn: I said so particularly.

Mr. Griffiths: I said the same.

Sir R. Glyn: It is not often an interrupter is in agreement. I am glad to know the hon. Member supports my own view.
The last point I want to make is that a great deal is being said in condemnation of the present sanitary arrangements. The sanitary arrangements are nothing to be proud of but I want the House to remember that once water is supplied which indeed is essential for drinking purposes, because people are drinking water which is not so good, demands are tacked on for sanitation and it might be found that pure water for drinking will not be available for the cottages so quickly. If there is concentration on supplying good drinking water then the supply can be increased for all the other purposes for which it is required.
An hon. Member has mentioned the conditions that exist in bad weather such as we have been having—agricultural labourers going home with wet clothes and having no place to dry them. In most cases, the town architect who designs cottages does not realise the importance of a drying cupboard and the importance of having an outside place at the entrance where dirty clothes can be taken off. He does not realise where the copper ought to be. It is because of this kind of thing, that I beg the Ministry of Health to lose no time in getting architects who understand the rural conditions, and to make it essential that district councils shall consult proper architects, before they condemn a place; and also to see how far we can accommodate old people in a village in smaller houses, thus releasing a larger house in which they live for a young married couple. I think this survey, which I trust will be made, should show the use to which existing houses are being put. You cannot turn out an old widow of a man who has done faithful service on the land for years—you do not want to—but she ought to have an opportunity of going to a smaller place which she can look after more easily and freeing the larger house in which she has been living for a young couple.
In conclusion, I think the siting of houses in the country is of importance. Wives will not be satisfied in future with living in an isolated position. Those connected with agriculture, keymen, such as stockmen who must be on the spot to look after the stock, must have houses

which are equal in every way to the house of the skilled artisan in a town. I believe that we have to come to a stage when the agricultural workers' houses have to be near a village and you have to rely on transport to get them to their work. I believe that is the trend of things. I am equally sure that the country does not even understand the enormous amount of skill there is in the agricultural work. It will not be sufficient for a young man to come to a farm and say "I am an agricultural workman," as will be the case after the war. What we want to encourage is the same pride in their job by agricultural workers that all other industries have. The real agricultural worker as the term is understood should be able to thatch, to cut and lay a hedge—he should be able to do all the things required on the land. Mechanisation will never kill the actual skill of man in handling land. The nearer one gets to the soil, the more one realises the wisdom of our forefathers, and the more we ought to recognise our responsibility in this House to see that those who work on the land have houses fit to live in. Otherwise, the House itself will suffer.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Richards: I am sure the House will be glad of the opportunity given to it this afternoon of discussing the question of rural housing. We all feel that at the back of this problem is the great economic problem of the future, which faces all agriculture. It is because agriculture has been unprofitable for a great many years, that the agricultural worker found it impossible to pay for an adequate cottage to house himself, his wife and his family. I agree with those hon. Members who have emphasised the deplorable condition of rural housing.
I should like to refer particularly to the conditions in Wales, which from some points of view present peculiar problems. Speaking generally, we have in the countryside in Wales very few concentrated villages. Our population is very sparsely distributed over the countryside, and there is not the same concentration of population, both farmers and labourers, as there is in England. The result is, as we have already heard, many of our people have to live in very remote parts of the country. A curious thing, moreover, is that many of what we might call labourers' cottages have been erected by


the people's own labour on the common land. They have been set up very rapidly and, as one can imagine, very roughly, because under the old Welsh law the houses had to be built in the course of a single night, and the smoke had to be coming out of the chimney by early morning. There is a very amusing account by an old Welsh poet of the 17th century of the way a whole community came together to build a house for a particular individual.
That is the history of many of them. They were built by "squatters" on the common. At first a very small rent was paid for the cottage; but in most cases the lord of the manor had designs upon them, and eventually they became entirely his property. The tragedy of the position is that in most cases that I know of—and I know of a great many—this is the kind of housing that exists in the remote rural parts of Wales. The lord of the manor took no steps to improve those houses. Whatever has been done has been done by the labour and the savings of the labourers themselves. It is a scandalous system, and it accounts largely for the unworthy conditions in which so many people in Wales are housed. Obviously, there is one thing that must be done. There is often attached to these houses a little land, for which the tenants pay a nominal rent. Sometimes they manage to keep a few sheep; very rarely do they manage to keep a cow. The State should take over this property, and get rid of the old manorial claim to this property, which should belong entirely to the people who built the houses. I do not think there is any other salvation than for the State to rehouse these people, who are in many cases the very backbone of the community. On these bits of common land live some of the most progressive people in Wales. On the rich lands, where the bigger farmers live, you do not find any of that intellectual keenness which is associated with these people, who live in such deplorable conditions.
I would make a plea for the small farmer. It has been said once or twice to-day that the rural district council has on some occasions interested itself in the housing of the working classes in the country. That is true, but the interest is very limited. These houses to which I have referred are often built against a mountainside. There is just a cavity made, a

wall is put up against the ground at the back; and the house is built as I have indicated. The extent of the interest of the rural district council has been that the tenants have been forced to remove the earth at the back, and the council have done nothing to improve the houses. We want the council to take more interest, and to assume complete responsibility for rebuilding these houses. The condition of things on many of the farms in Wales, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) knows, is infinitely worse than it is elsewhere. Some of the farms are scandalous. The only concern of the landlord, or his agent—because in many cases the landlord knows very little about the conditions—is to get the rent at regular intervals. I could mention estates on which no repairs have been effected in the last 50 years, and the houses are now utterly unworthy of repair. The only thing to do is to build new houses.
I will tell you the policy of some of the Welsh landowners. Recently I went over a little farm of nearly 60 acres. The house in which the people had attempted to live was in a deplorable condition. The landlord, some years ago, had put up rather good buildings. He would not repair the house, but gave it to a neighbouring farmer. That is happening all over our country. If a farmhouse becomes dilapidated he soon finds a rich, reliable farmer, who becomes the tenant of that holding and of the farm that he already holds. That is the way the countryside is being denuded of its population. Plenty of people would like to live in some of these farmhouses if they were put in a state of decent repair, but the economic interest of the landowner in many cases lies just the other way. He wants his rent, and does not care two pennies about the conditions in which these people live. I would like to see some authority—I do not know what authority, unless it is the Ministry of Health—institute a survey of the conditions in farmhouses, as well as in labourers' cottages. I am not pleading for the farmer as against the labourer; we want them both admirably housed. I hope that, as a result of this Debate, we shall have an inquiry into the condition of the farmhouses, as well as into that of the labourers' cottages.
Might I, with some diffidence, make a suggestion, which has been passing


through my mind this afternoon? If the Ministry of Health really want to have a drive in housing, as I believe they do, I suggest that they should divide the country into a number of areas, as was done for Civil Defence, and appoint in each area an individual—he might be called a Commissioner, or whatever you like. Under the Civil Defence scheme, there were a dozen such individuals appointed; and we were in contact with the Home Office over all questions relating to Civil Defence. I found that the public authorities were glad to receive advice and guidance from us. I am certain that the local authorities, particularly the rural district councils, would value immensely such assistance from individuals responsible for the housing drive in the different areas. The public authorities do not know where to turn, with so many Ministers. I myself am not clear as to the difference between one Minister and another, and the particular function that each is supposed to perform. If there was an individual of that kind, who was in contact with all the Ministries and who would be able to say to the local authorities which was the person definitely concerned with this problem, I think it would be of very great benefit to the community and it would be one way, so far as I can see, in which we could secure the new houses which are so badly needed in the countryside.

4.41 p.m.

Major John Morrison: I have listened very intently during the whole of this Debate, and I wish to support the ease put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). I wish I could agree with the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) when he suggested that we should start right away and knock down houses in rural areas and have adequate labour and materials available to build them up again, but, from what I know of the building position and the number of workers available, I am afraid that that is not possible at the present time owing to the great shortage of men. It is owing to the shortage of men, and the fact that we have had to supply from the countryside as many men as possible to the cities, particularly London, to build up the blitzed areas, that there is now a very great deal to be done, and urgently needing to be done, in the housing of the countryside. After five years of war and blitz, wind, water and

the elements have wrought considerable damage, which has not been repaired by the ordinary maintenance staffs, as it would normally have been done had we not been at war. Over and above that, many houses which would normally have been reconditioned have not been dealt with, on account of that very same fact, and I would particularly support the hon. Member for Chippenham in asking that the Government should give every incentive to those in the countryside and should help, with increased grants, the improvement of this difficult state of rural housing.
If this is done, I feel that we should kill several birds with one stone, because, at the present time, we are bound to be short of labour and materials for quite a considerable period, and, if everyone is encouraged to recondition houses which are capable of being dealt with in that way—and they can be, nowadays, by modern methods and by using good, seasoned stuff in them—we shall save labour and materials, and that, while the war is still on, is a vital necessity to the country as a whole.
We have seen the men who are primarily responsible for the building industry taken away from the countryside. They went into the Territorial Army at the beginning of the war, and later those who were left were directed away to build aerodromes and Service camps. They have been lost to the countryside as a consequence, and now many of them are working in London on blitz damage. From what I have seen of the countryside where I come from, the people there do not grudge the loan of these men to the unfortunate people of London. They appreciate the horrors of the blitz, and they want these men to help them, but they do want them back as soon as possible. The rural builder and his men can do a job in the countryside better than anybody else, and I think that, from the national point of view, it will be an economy if these men are allowed to return to their own districts at the earliest possible opportunity. Living in his own home, with the cooking done by his own wife, with his own knowledge of the rural area in which he works and, particularly, of rural materials, this man can do a really good job, and I hope that whoever is to reply to this Debate will be able to tell us that some of these men, at any


rate, will go back to their own localities at the earliest possible moment.
There are also a number of men, not quite in the same category, who are not actually employed by the rural builder, but are employed by farmers or estate owners, and who went off at the beginning of the war and who, also, have been lost to the countryside. I hope that, when their turn comes to come out of the Army, a fair share of them will go back to their original job of keeping the countryside in repair and in a proper state of maintenance.
The hon. Member for Chippenham also referred to the question of grants. I hope the Government will see their way to increase these grants so as to give every incentive to the individual to "get cracking" as soon as possible on this vital problem. So far as I can make out, the total amount which it has cost this country up to date on account of these rural housing grants is between £163,000 and £164,000. When one thinks of what it means to the health and happiness of these people, who are the heart and soul of the countryside, and to their children, it is a pretty small sum, and a little more would not only be money well spent but, from the point of view of the future children of the land, a real investment.
We also know that, very shortly, there will be released to the country a number of men and women from the Services. As has been said, many of them will want to get married, and we are very short of houses, so I hope that, as well as every incentive being given for reconditioning where possible, we shall get our quota of new houses and, if necessary, of temporary houses. The Minister of Agriculture announced the other day a scheme for men coming from the Forces to be trained. Worthy and useful additions they will be, but you cannot train a man from the Forces, who has been driving a tank or firing a Bren gun, for rural work straight away. He will have to stay on the land quite a year or so, and I hope the Government will consider housing these trainees properly. These men now fighting in Belgium, Italy and France, will be deserving of proper housing conditions.
There is one other point. At the present time the housing grants do not cover anything to do with drainage just outside

the walls of the house, and I hope that something could be incorporated so that the drains coming into the house can be included in the amount of the grant. I think that is a point which puts off a lot of people from essential reconditioning of their buildings.

4.49 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I hope the hon. Member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him. I agree with practically all he said, but time is short and I have other things to say myself. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) on having raised this subject. The prosperity of the countryside depends largely, indeed almost entirely, upon agriculture, and the importance of rural housing to agriculture cannot, I think, be exaggerated. We are apt to think of agriculture as a matter of machines, stock, fields and farms, and not to think enough about the men. If an Army really depends upon its men, and not on its tanks, guns, jeeps and so on, so does agriculture. We have got to keep the men we have, and also try to attract more men into the agricultural industry.
I am ambitious enough for that industry to believe that that can be done. It is an industry that is coming to life again and at the present moment it is fuller of vigour than it has been for a long time. There are plenty of opportunities for young men interested in mechanics, with the use of combined harvesters and lots of complicated machinery. But agricultural workers are not all bachelors. Agriculture is one of the professions in which a good wife means more to a worker than to men in most other professions. She is almost as essential to the farmer as to the agricultural worker. We shall never get wives to agree to live in the country unless we can give them accommodation comparable to that which their sisters are getting in the towns. The principle involved in the Housing (Rural Workers) Act is most important. A few days ago I asked the local publichouse keeper what the talk in the bar was about houses. We are to have a housing scheme in our village, as most villages are. The answer was that most of them said, "Why do they not bring our present houses up to date before they build new ones?" That is only in respect of one village, but I believe it is a commonly accepted view.
In 1939, three out of every four houses in rural England had been built before 1919 and are thus over 25 years old. In those 25 years there has been immense progress in all sorts of amenities and in the actual design of the house itself. There is no wonder that these people are dissatisfied. Again if one builds a new cottage, the man and his wife who go into it are very pleased, but their pleasure is discounted very considerably by the fact that all their neighbours are dissatisfied with houses with which they have been more or less satisfied for a long time. As new houses are built all over England that feeling is going to grow and spread. At the same time this Act is the method that will be useful to satisfy the discontented. By this Act some of the most needful cases are met. There is for example the case of the cottages on stock farms, where it is necessary for the men and their wives to live rather isolated lives and where rural district councils are not prepared to build new houses themselves.
I only regret that in the Amendment on the Paper the name of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was not coupled with the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938. Under Section 3 of that Act bona fide agricultural cottages, properly maintained, and kept for agricultural labourers could be built by private persons with a grant of £10 for 40 years. That total of £400 to-day is not anything like enough to enable people to build fresh cottages. We want in the agricultural districts, besides the houses which are renovated, a considerable number of new houses. I agree with the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) on that point. In my own experience the renovated house is not altogether satisfactory, and if you can get an absolutely new one it is often much better. The new houses recently built by the Ministry of Agriculture cost between £950 and £1,200 and the £400 Government grant will not go very far to meet it. Possibly there has been some change and something more done of which I have not heard, and if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who, I understand, is to reply can enlighten me a little on that point, I shall be glad to know whether there is any chance that something may be done in connection with this Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, which at the moment is rather a dead letter,

because the financial provisions are not enough, so that it may be brought up to date.
We have had a great many reports ately dealing with rural housing. We have had the Scott Report, which was a wide Report embracing the life of the countryside generally, the Hobhouse Report and the Dudley Report. The last two have only been presented recently but the Scott Report was presented some time ago. There are certain recommendations in that Report which, I hope, are receiving attention. I want to call attention particularly to the supply of rural electricity. There is nothing that would make some of the rural houses more acceptable to those who have to live in them than if electricity could be brought to them. I hope that the matter of the allocation of electricity, which the Scott Report considered essential and which in due course should be available in the homes of practically every citizen in town and country alike, with no higher price either to the consumer in the country or the town, and methods of dealing with it, are being considered.
There has been some talk about the provision of materials and labour for building cottages in the country. The country must have a fair allocation in comparison with the town. I was glad to hear that there are big supplies of bricks. In my own rural area where there are nine brickworks, I believe none is working at all. In East Sussex there is only one works producing roofing tiles and that is working at very low pressure, because the managing director is away on active service. I ask the Government to try and revitalise these local sources of supply. I know the difficulties and that men cannot be spared in many cases from the Services. But it is not a question of a great many men and I am not certain whether it is a matter of the actual number of individuals, or whether it is more a case that the fact of their being allowed to go might upset the others. All of us who were in France at the end of the last war know the difficulties we got into in allowing certain categories of men to go back before others. If it is the second reason that influences the powers that be, I feel that soldiers consider the matter of housing as so important that they would be ready to see those who are concerned with it get home a little earlier than themselves.
I am afraid there has been a lot of criticism, as well as suggestions, directed to the Minister this afternoon and, if I may, I would like to finish on a different note. Two years ago to this day, I was in the capital city of a country with a history of some 3,000 years. It was nine square miles in solid houses, it had no water supply and no drainage system. None of the other smaller towns of that country had these either. I believe, a century ago, England was the same, and I think that really we have to be thankful for what has been done by the Ministry of Health and others associated with it, though much remains to be done.

5.1 p.m.

Major Sir George Davies: At this late hour I want to cut down my remarks to what I may call practical measurements. This House is united on the problem of rural housing, and the deplorable conditions which exist, so it is unnecessary to continue to press that argument. I am glad that a special day has been devoted to rural housing, because the problem of urban housing is quite different. What we want now is to find how to get reasonable results as rapidly as possible, and it is to that point I want to direct the thoughts of hon. Members.
It seems to me that we have to work along what I may call lines of least resistance. What was the source of most of our rural building in the past? It was the much-abused landowner. Now I do not wish to touch on the question of whether he has outlived his usefulness, or ever had any, but the fact is that it was through him that a great amount of rural housing was done. Under those conditions, it seems to me that if we want immediate results, we must continue to work through those channels. At the present moment, that excellent measure, the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, has not been working up to 100 per cent. You cannot expect anybody, be he a wicked landlord or anybody else, to spend his money if he is not going to get one new shilling for one old. Therefore, you have to offer sufficient inducement for him, too, to play his immediate part. What has handicapped him, apart from the provisions of the Act? Two things. The problem of the rural countryside housing is one of dispersal as compared with the

towns. If you take a village, even of 500 or 800 people, the number of houses which can be built there is infinitesimal, compared with a Birmingham or a London or a Manchester, but the problem becomes infinitely greater, when you have to disperse pairs of cottages here and there, on the isolated farms which have to be manned. You cannot wipe out those cottages. There are enormous difficulties in bringing water supply to them, as compared with a village of even 500 people. We have to take second-best and not first-best. Therefore, I come to this, that although much can be said for the desirability of building new houses, if we want to get results, we have to turn our thoughts at once to reconditioning and rehabilitation. It is the landlord, or the land-owner who has been providing those cottages in the past, good, bad and indifferent, and he has built them through local small builders.
I have had some experience in my own constituency of this question of labour supply. There is a firm which did a great deal of work for me, both on my own house and on cottages on my estate. It employed a considerable number of men—a couple of dozen or more—and it was a flourishing business. They were good people. One by one, their workers have been either called up to the Services, or have gone off to other directed work, and the firm has gone out of business. Nobody in the area they served can get their services any longer. In a small village near me there is a very able fellow who works on a much smaller scale, with half-a-dozen workers, and who carried out a great deal of rehabilitation and repairing work. He was able to get such scanty supplies as are to be had. It is no good the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) saying there is material to be had; there is not. If there is, it is not in the right place, and transport is difficult. We know how difficult timber is. The man, to whom I refer, who was the "king-pin" of this staff of six or eight workers, was suddenly called up by the Ministry of Labour. I intervened, personally, on the basis that if he were taken away, the whole thing would fall to pieces because there would be no directing mind, and an extensive area of the countryside would be without anybody to attend to these matters. I submit that if we want to work on the lines of least resistance, we must first give


inducement to the landowner, not to make money out of it but to undertake the rehabilitation and reconditioning of these cottages and, where possible, to rebuild. Secondly, we must see that the impaired resources of the small builder are not further impaired, but are increased, so that this work can be done.
With regard to the comparison between reconditioning and building new cottages, I have done both. I have found that if you have a building which justifies it, a reconditioned cottage is much better liked by its inhabitants than a new cottage—certainly the average council cottage. I would emphasise this to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who is to reply. It is much more important, certainly in rural areas, to have a slightly larger floor-space for the rooms at the expense of a slightly reduced height. This minimum height, in my submission, is absurd. You can get just as big a "frowst" and lack of ventilation in a higher room, with all the windows and doors shut, as in a lower room with reasonable ventilation. Additional floor-space appeals much more to the mother of a growing family, than do the small rooms in some of the council-built houses.
With regard to the question of water, it is comparatively simple to get a water supply to a village of 1,000 or 500 people but it is a very different question to get a water supply to a cottage five miles from anywhere. Again, you have to work along lines of least resistance if you want immediate results. I want to address myself to one other point concerning the difference between rural housing and urban housing. Generalities are dangerous, but you can go to a great big industrial area and build a large housing estate, with houses all alike, like a pack of cards, with adequate proportions in themselves, but as a group anything but beautiful. However, the beauty of England in that area has already been spoiled by the existence of the big industrial centres. We, in the countryside, have still to protect the beauty of England's countryside. Therefore, we have to think not only of the interior amenities of the house, but of its exterior amenities too, in order to preserve them not only for the regular dwellers of the countryside, but for the satisfaction of the eye of the inhabitant of urban and

industrial England when he comes to the countryside.
I want to emphasise what I have already said. What are the outstanding features of our villages and of our cottages in England? One is that the cottages nestle, and the other is that the villages cluster. If we depart from that, we shall lend a hand in ruining the beauties of rural England which we could maintain, with all the latest amenities of refrigerators and vacuum cleaners, of gas and water laid on, and all the rest of it. But in our anxiety to hasten an improvement in our rural housing—and I am second to no one in wanting to hasten it, and in not wanting the best to impede the development of the less good—all of us should see that what is spoken of as "Merrie England" is, at the same time, maintained.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not desire to keep the House for very long, but it is right that Members on this side should take what share they can in a Debate which definitely affects the interests of every party in this Assembly. All of us are very anxious to see rural housing complementary to urban housing. In the past, most of the emphasis has been laid on providing houses in towns while those in the country have often come off second-best. The time has now come, however, when country dwellers should have as much spent on providing houses for them and their families as those in the towns. In some ways the position of those who live in rural areas is a good deal worse than those who live in towns. They have all sorts of things to put up with which those who live in London and other great cities do not have to suffer. I have listened to a fair proportion of this Debate and I would like to suggest to the Minister that although every possible effort must be used to repair and rebuild existing houses not too much money should be spent on those which quite soon should be knocked down. There are in country districts houses which look picturesque and which for the want of something better have still to be occupied, but which have no damp courses and frequently have rotten woodwork. It would be a pity to waste too much time and money on such buildings; it would be far better to wait and spend money


on temporary wooden houses, or houses of the Portal type.
When we are building houses in the rural areas we should not be cheeseparing. It is likely that for many years to come this country must try to be economical in what it spends, but I believe that it would be a bad thing for the community if we carried that too far in considering the provision of housing. I would like to see three bedrooms in every cottage, rather than a parlour and a living-room downstairs. Too often have money and space been given to the provision of a sitting-room, in addition to an ordinary living-room, which could have been better used on providing a third bedroom. I was glad to hear a previous speaker refer to the Scott Report. Of the three Reports we have had on these matters recently I think that is the only one which is completely readable, and I would like to feel that the Government were trying to "push" that more among members of local authorities, so that those charged with the provision of housing could have a better idea of what could be done to increase housing amenities. I would like to feel that the Ministry of Health looked upon that Report as its Bible, and worked to it as to a schedule.
In a part of the country I know conditions are extremely bad. There is no water, sanitation, gas or electric light, and I hope that the Ministry are fully alive to the necessity of seeing that when they do build houses they provide these amenities. It is a shocking thing that in this country, which, after all, has a very small area compared with some other countries in the world, one finds at no great distance from great cities and towns, villages which, invariably, when there is a drought, are without water for a week or two, and occasionally for months, and where the inhabitants have to walk long distances to get the articles of food they require. It should not be difficult to carry water, gas and electricity to every part of the country. Here, transport is a matter which needs attention. I hope the Ministry will realise that the question of rural housing is not one which is concerned solely with bricks and mortar. Other Ministries come into the question, and I would like to know that the Ministry of Health realises this and intends to co-operate with those other Ministries.
I think it may be necessary for the Ministry of Health, sooner or later, to take drastic powers to deal with certain local authorities. Fairly wide powers are already on the Statute Book, but in peacetime there were many authorities which did not take advantage of all the legislation which was ready for their use. I have no reason to believe that although the war is certainly changing many of our views it will alter the attitude of some of the local authorities. It may be that when the Ministry really gets down to this job—as it will have to do at the earliest possible moment—it will find that certain local authorities are difficult to shift. If that is so I hope the Minister will not hesitate to come to the House and get the powers he may need, and make local authorities rise to their responsibilities. Knowing the temper of Members of all parties in the House, I am positive that he would be supported in whatever he might be asked to do.

5.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I do not think I have ever listened to a Debate in the House in which I agreed more with nearly everything which has been said. There are a few exceptions, but I think the whole tenor of this Debate has been that of realising the appalling conditions of housing in rural areas, and of a desire on the part of every Member that those conditions should be improved as quickly as possible. Really constructive suggestions have been made to-day, and as I noted the points made by one speaker after the other I found that they were points on which, it is clear, action will have to be taken if we are to bring about the production of more food in this country and to house—and house well—a larger agricultural population.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) opened the Debate with a speech which was appreciated by every other hon. Member in the House. He pointed out that in the Gracious Speech it was announced that the Government would try to maintain a high level of food production, and that in the days to come, agricultural workers who will be going back to the country areas, will want houses of their own. I was glad to hear that the agricultural worker appreciated a good wife; good houses, therefore, are necessary for these people. We have also


learnt that the Minister of Agriculture is hoping to have an opportunity of giving training to ex-Servicemen to take up agricultural work, and houses will be required for them. I think everybody is agreed that many of the houses are of a standard that we are ashamed to have in this country at present.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), I thought, was perhaps a little more pessimistic than he need have been about the situation. I thought perhaps he did not fully appreciate what the labour situation has been during these years of war. I only hope that, if there is the supply of labour to which he refers, he will draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to these men so that labour can be moved for building, if it is not engaged in vital war services. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the 3,000 cottages which the Chancellor of the Duchy endeavoured to have built at the speed that he would have liked to see. I notice that hon. Members to-day are asking that there should be another programme of 3,000. I am sure my right hon. Friend will be glad that hon. Members are considering that it is better to have a small programme of even a few houses than none at all. I was asked about the numbers. Of the 2,844 which were put in hand, 2,528 have been completed. I also think that hon. Members who have seen them will agree that they are good cottages, and if any hon. Members are still in doubt or would like to see something more but cannot travel round the country to see them, they can go to the Ministry of Health branch at Caxton House and see photographs and plans of the internal arrangements and of the outside of the cottages, because they are cottages of which we can be justly proud.

Mr. Grenfell: We have six of them in my division and they are very good, but there is no water or light as yet.

Miss Horsbrugh: I was coming to the subject of water and light. I pointed out, in the figures that I gave the hon. Gentleman, that they are not all completed. I think it will be agreed that they are good, but the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) said they were too expensive. I would remind the hon. Member that they were planned for key workers in agriculture for the ploughing up programme, and it may be that in some cases

they are too large and too expensive for other agricultural workers. Most of them are occupied, and there is a great deal of contentment and gratitude that there is at least this small amount.
The hon. Member for Gower was speaking of the labour problem and said it was not so difficult as some of us had made out. I have been at the Ministry for a good many years now and I cannot help remembering the various difficulties and disappointments that we have had—the difficulties of wartime and the difficulty of the size of the building industry. I have just been handed a note about the building and civil engineering industries and I find that the number of men in the two before the war was 1,294,000. That was in June, 1939. In June, 1944, they had dropped to 600,000 and in October, 1944, to 512,000. Since the war these men have been building factories and aerodromes. I remember well the time when hon. Members said that the work on aerodromes was ceasing and asked why more builders could not be used for building houses. We could not give a reply except that they were wanted for the war effort. All we could say was that there was no more building labour available. Hon. Members were asking for houses to go up like mushrooms in a night. The answer, which we could not give then, was that they were building the Mulberry Ports. Our next disappointment was the flying bomb. Large numbers of men who might have been engaged on building new houses were required for repairing damaged houses. We are glad to know that these men have come from all parts of the country. I quite sympathise with those who have said, let them go back to the countryside as soon as possible. The Minister of Works said, "Certainly, as soon as possible," but at present no one can give the date when that will be. The hon. Member for Gower also asked about materials and said there was any amount of bricks. There are materials, but the difficulty is labour. If we had more labour we could get on with the programme, but labour is not available at present, unless the hon. Gentleman can tell me definitely where there is labour and no one will be more grateful to know than my right hon. Friend. If we can be told, I am certain that the Minister of Labour will direct these people to building, if they are not on work essential to the war effort. It is


true that there is a large stock of bricks. There are about 1,000,000,000. That is all to the good. We are getting ready and materials are being piled up for the building programme.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) asked about brickworks having been closed down. The peak of the pre-war brick output was 7,000,000,000 a year. At present, where the brickworks are open, they can produce 4,000,000,000 a year. The closed brickworks are being kept in order under a repair and maintenance scheme to enable them to open at the shortest possible notice when there is sufficient labour. As to the tiles that my hon. and gallant Friend asked about the pre-war capacity of the industry was 1,200,000,000 clay and concrete tiles. Only 20 per cent. of the works remain open, but 30 of the largest works are now being reopened, so I think I can assure him that the subject of materials is in hand and is being watched carefully. While on the subject of labour, I might say something about the small builder. Several hon. Members have spoken of the vital necessity of the small builder being able to get to work as soon as possible and to get his workers back.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I understood the hon. Lady to say that a number of tile works were being opened. Have any steps been taken to see that they are provided with labour?

Miss Horsbrugh: When certain works had to shut it was because of the shortage of labour. When there is a necessity to open them labour is being found. If hon. Members look at the report of the sub-committee on rural housing, they will find one section devoted to the subject of the small builder. The report says:
We are most anxious that the small builder who has so far proved the most effective instrument in rural conditions should be enabled to resume his activities in good time so that the improvement of rural housing may not be held up for lack of the proper type of organisation in the industry.
My right hon. Friend subscribes absolutely, totally and entirely to that. Not only does the small builder know the work, but he takes a personal interest in it. His work is perhaps two or three cottages in one village. It is not suitable work for the big contractor, but it is suitable for the small builder. Perhaps

I might tell the House of an instance that impressed me as an example of the interest taken in their work by the small builders in the villages. Two of the agricultural cottages that were recently built in the Warminster and Westbury rural district were to be thatched. There has been an effort to ensure that these houses are of the type that is traditional to the areas in which they are built. For these two houses, the thatcher, a local man, was instructed to put on a plain thatch. On his next visit the architect was surprised to find that the thatcher, working in his own time and at his own expense, had ornamented the thatch with three rows of scallops.
What are the Government's plans for getting on with the job? We are all agreed about the necessity. Perhaps I might say a few words about the short-term programme. The long-term programme of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 houses in 10 or 12 years' time must be sub-divided into shorter programmes if the work is to be done. We remember what happened in 1919, when a vast programme was attempted and very little was done. This time we hope that with proper planning and organisation more can be done. Several hon. Members complain that our programme is too small. Our reply is that we would be glad if we could build more houses, but that there is no advantage in putting forward great plans for an immense number of houses and probably overwhelming the building industry. The proper way is to start with an organised plan and to work bit by bit. The rural district councils were invited to draw up short-term programmes, and the programmes submitted for England and Wales cover 48,000 houses. That is nearly one-fifth of the total short-term programme. The population in the rural area is about one-sixth of the whole. This shows that the rural district councils have not been behind hand in getting ready with their plans and in their anxiety to build. I do not wish to say too much now on the subject of drainage, water supply, electricity and the other amenities, to which hon. Members have referred, because of the time limit.
I would remind the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), who referred to the White Paper on water, that my right hon. Friend has already said that further legislation will come before the House implementing that Paper.


I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) on the subject of water and drainage. We all agree that we want a proper water supply, drainage and sewerage, but I think that to-day it will be better in the time at my disposal to deal with the actual housing. I agree that there may be in the earlier years after the war some houses in which we have not got all we want, but I believe it is better to get the houses up and to add the sewerage, drainage, water supply and the other amenities when it is possible to do it.
As to sites, the rural district councils have been authorised to acquire land for their programmes. They already own 3,200 acres, which are enough for 30,000 houses, and they are acquiring about another 6,000 acres, Which will be enough for 50,000 or 60,000 houses.

Mr. Turton: Are the sites which they are invited to acquire for the whole programme or only for the short-term programme?

Miss Horsbrugh: We have asked them to acquire land for the two-year programme, but permission can be given to acquire for the long-term programme. It is only sensible, if there is to be proper planning, to get large sites of many acres. The Councils will not be able to build on the whole of the sites in the first two years, but it would be bad planning to give only permission to take small acreages. Permission, therefore, is given for larger sites than can properly be used for the short-term programme.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is it not also bad policy to build houses and not to put in water, drainage and sewerage at the same time?

Miss Horsbrugh: It depends a great deal on individual cases. There might be some cases where people would have to be without houses for some time if they had to wait for these services. I do not want to be drawn into speaking too much about the water plans now, but it is our intention to see that these and the housing plans advance together with as little delay as possible. The delay is the war, and if hon. Gentlemen can tell me on what date the war will end and how soon our men will come back, I will then tell them when we shall be able to get on with housing. In choosing these sites, it is not the case that local authorities have to go to many

departments. It has now been arranged that they have only to consult the regional planning officer, and he gets in touch with all the other Departments. We have, therefore, advanced in the direction of a unified scheme.

Sir R. Glyn: Have the views of the regional planning officer to have precedence over the views of the inhabitants in every case?

Miss Horsbrugh: Certainly not. The regional planning officer will represent all the Departments concerned, and after he has been approached the plans will go to the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Grenfell: Will the regional officer be the liaison between the Ministry of Health and the planning authorities?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry that I have not made it clear. As hon. Members have said, the Minister of Agriculture must be consulted because he will not want to give up good agricultural land for housing. The Minister of Town and Country Planning is also concerned to see about planning, and so on. Instead of local authorities having to deal with each of these Departments separately, they can now deal with the regional planning officer, and he will keep in touch with these different Departments.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Would the hon. Lady make it clear that there will be an appeal from him to the Minister? Otherwise there will be a departmental blockage, which we shall not be able to get over.

Miss Horsbrugh: Certainly, there is. The plans must afterwards come to the Minister of Health, who is the Housing Minister but, in order to prevent the difficulty of which I have spoken, we have thought that this is a scheme which will ensure efficiency and speed.
Now, as to the siting of the cottages which, we all agree, is very important. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Sir G. Davies) saying that a village clusters and the cottage nestles; I can assure him that we shall do our best to help on both clustering and nestling. We have suggested, in the Housing Manual, that cottages should, as far as possible, be sited in or near existing villages, but there are cases where that cannot be carried out. The agricultural


industry will be turning over more and more to livestock and there must be cottages, new cottages, more distant. Therefore, there must be exceptions, and nothing can be laid down as an absolute rule. We hope that there will be additions to existing villages. There is no suggestion, as some hon. Members have thought—there is some misunderstanding on this point so I had better clear it up—that rural districts will be allowed only to have large blocks of 25 or 50 cottages. There will be nothing to prevent rural housing authorities building in small numbers and on sites selected with regard to the proper principles of good planning and good agriculture.

Mr. Colegate: Does that observation apply to the permanent houses or to temporary houses?

Miss Horsbrugh: I was just coming to the temporary houses when I was temporarily interrupted. It has been made clear that temporary houses have been allocated to districts, where they can be put up on single sites of 50, or on sites in close proximity. We want to put these temporary houses up in larger numbers because of speed of distribution and erection. The temporary houses will be going up mostly near towns or in areas such as mining areas or others where there is already a nucleus of population. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. D. Scott) asked what number of temporary houses had been allocated to the rural areas. The number, on the first allocation, is 2,400 to 23 rural districts. The next questions were on the subject of the possibility of further reconditioning and on the financial arrangements. Those questions were raised by the hon. Member for Wansbeck and the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in the previous Debate, and to-day by the hon. Member for Chippenham and by several other hon. Members.
Let us be quite clear on the matter. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) seemed to think that perhaps there would be reconditioning of houses that were not worth reconditioning, but that is not the policy of the Government. I do not think it is the policy of the local authorities or of any sensible people. There must be a good house which, by some scheme of reconditioning, can be brought up to date and

modernised; otherwise the grant certainly would not be given. The number of houses that have been reconditioned in England since the 1926 Act is 22,840. Scotland has done better. I am glad to say that in my country the number is 32,500. In England, it was only just before the war that they seemed to be doing more of this work. In the year preceding the war there was a reconditioning of 4,000 dwellings, so perhaps it had been realised by that time what valuable work could be done.
The financial provisions of these two Acts were originally fixed in relation to building prices ruling in 1926 but, as the Rural Housing sub-Committee has pointed out, and as hon. Members have pointed out, those provisions are no longer appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has undertaken that he will introduce the necessary legislation this Session to put that right and, as the hon. Member for Chippenham asked him, that legislation will deal with both the amount of maximum grant and with the limit of the value of the reconditioned house. It has been suggested that a number of rural cottages in rural areas have been made subject to demolition or clearance orders but which could properly have been dealt with under the scheme for reconditioning. In some cases I believe that substantial works, alleged to have made the cottage fit for habitation, have been carried out since the Order was made. There is no power under the present Housing Acts to rescind the Order, but the existence and the occupation of houses which had been condemned before the war has been preserved by defence regulations. These continue in existence and will no doubt continue for some time. There is, therefore, no question of any likelihood of demolition in the near future and in view of the shortage of houses there will be ample opportunity for considering those cases where it is suggested that, since the demolition order was made, such large-scale works of reconstruction have been carried out as to make the house now fit for habitation. A change in the legal status of the house could only be effected by legislation. While this possibility will be examined—and whether legislation will be possible or what form it will take I cannot say—I must point out that the position was examined before the war and was then found to be fraught with many diffi-


culties. In any case, there is no prospect of immediate demolition of the cottages and there is time to go into the matter.
Hon. Members have referred to the survey of rural housing. Rural district councils are being asked to classify all their houses. It will be for the councils to decide how to classify houses which they consider have been made fit for habitation, and no objection will be made by the Minister if the classification is based on the present condition of the houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon spoke about demolition and wished that architects were consulted. I would remind him that the onus is on the owner of a house. If he wishes to recondition a house so as to bring it up to the state where it can be passed as fit for habitation he can employ his architect. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if the house is condemned he can appeal, in the case of a single house, to the county court or, in the case of a house included with others in a clearance area, to the Minister of Health. In the latter case, an inquiry is held by qualified architects in the presence of both parties. The owner of the house can employ an architect and, I presume, generally does. I feel that the hon. Member's anxiety on this point will therefore probably be relieved.
Another point by the hon. Member for Chippenham was on the subject of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, as to its administration by county councils and sometimes by rural district councils. He wanted a more unified system. The original Act gave power to the county councils, but in some cases it has been delegated by the Minister of Health to rural district councils. Hon. Members have pointed out cases where county councils seem to have done more and cases where rural district councils have done more. I do not think there is much to choose between the two. The Report of the Housing Sub-Committee suggests an arrangement for joint county committees so that the rural district councils and the county councils will be able to work together. It goes very carefully into this point and into the financial arrangements. If hon. Members will look at that part of the Committee's report they will see that they suggest that these schemes should come before these Joint Committees so that in that way we shall get co-operation, as the hon. Member suggested, and not conflict.
Perhaps I might now say a few more words on the subjects brought to our notice by the report of this sub-committee. I have mentioned the joint committees, and the House might be interested to know that committees have already been established in 52 out of 62 administrative counties in England and Wales. No committees are needed in two counties—London and Middlesex—because there are no rural districts. Out of the eight remaining counties, five are now arranging their Committees, and it only remains for three to get on with the job, one county in England and two in Wales. They have not yet formed their joint county committees [An HON. MEMBER: "Name them."] I am asked to name them—Flint and Cardigan and the Isle of Wight. Officers of the Ministry of Health have attended many of the initial conferences of these county committees, and I would assure hon. Members that there is a real drive going on, both from the point of view of the people in the country who want houses, and of the rural district councils, the county councils and the officers of the Ministry of Health, to get plans ready. The rural areas, I know, are simply waiting for the word "Go," longing to begin and do the job. They are also getting to work on the surveys. In a few cases the survey recommended has been started. This will give—the hon. Member for Wansbeck was interested in this—greater uniformity of housing standards, because it will be done by the joint committee.
The sub-committee also recommend that there should be more sanitary inspectors. They realised there would be a shortage, and a scheme has been prepared for ex-Servicemen for intensive and specialised training, both in the theoretical instruction in centres arranged by the Ministry of Education, and then in practical training under the personal supervision of the medical officer of health and the chief sanitary inspector of one of the local authorities. The Committee also recommend that women should be co-opted on to the housing committees. That has been done in a great many cases. In 12 cases the joint county committees have co-opted women. It was also recommended hat architects should be employed by the rural authorities when they were making their plans. The Royal Institute of British architects have undertaken to put local authorities in touch


with architects who are ready to undertake the preparation of the lay-out and plans for the houses.
I have given some examples of what we are doing to deal with the recommendations of the Hobhouse Sub-Committee to show that since that Report was received and published it has certainly not been pigeon-holed. Action has begun already, action to prepare for this housing drive, which we all want to see. Hon. Members have talked to-day of housing in rural areas being worse than in urban areas. I think it is appalling in both. I think that it is one of the biggest problems which, we all agree, has to be tackled. If we are to have a healthy, happy, contented people we have to have decent houses. But merely making plans, merely having reports, is not going to do the job. It has to be well organised. Schemes have to be prepared not merely as window-dressing, but with due consideration to what the building force will be, and how we can plan it to do the job and do it well.
To-day we are ending our Debate on the King's Speech. Our Debate has ranged over a wide number of subjects. National security, foreign affairs, international relationships have taken an important place, as they always must, because we know as never before that it is no use going on with our social schemes, or building houses, if we are going to have wars in which those houses will be destroyed. From home affairs we have gone on to export trade. To me it seems that we have ended this Debate on one of the most important subjects of all. Eight years ago, I had the honour and privilege of saying the first words in the Debate on the Gracious Speech. To-day, I have the chance of saying the last. When the Debate takes place on the next Gracious Speech, I hope that there will be more speeches on housing and above all that there will be more houses.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Resolved:
That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.

Ordered:
That the Estimate presented to this House during the present Session be referred to the Committee of Supply."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Resolved:
That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Orders of the Day — INDIA (FAILURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY)

Resolved:
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Orissa on 30th June, 1944, a copy of which Proclamation was presented on 25th July, 1944."—[Mr. Amery.]

Orders of the Day — KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [30th November],
That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the Department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House.

Question again proposed.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: I rise to resume a discussion on a matter in which I hope to receive the co-operation of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I hope that the exodus of Members at the present time is no evidence of the lack of interest in this domestic matter. There are two attitudes which the Members of the Kitchen Committee, who are to be nominated again for another Session's office, can take on this matter. They can take our raising this as an act of hostility to them, or they can take it as an effort on our part to co-operate with them in getting additional influence over the


powers that be. I hope they will not take the first position. If they do, I think they will find themselves, at the end of this Session, in a relationship with the House of Commons which will be extremely awkward.
I ventured to say to the House a few days ago, that at the outbreak of the war we, the Members of Parliament, allowed ourselves to be deprived of many facilities necessary for the full discharge of our duties. It seems to me a most undignified position that the Members of this House should always consider their functions so unimportant that whenever an emergency arises they retire shyly into the background, and that while the powers and facilities of the Members of the Executive are enlarged, theirs are diminished. That is exactly what happened with regard to the facilities available for feeding and other things. I think that the members of the Kitchen Committee take too limited a view of their functions. Secondly, I consider that they have, in the last year or so, been insufficiently energetic in protecting the interests of the ordinary Members of this House. I have concrete evidence of that. I am not accusing all the members of the Kitchen Committee: there are some members who have been extremely active; but there are a large number of sleeping partners on that Committee. Hon. Members may not know this, but it was entirely due to the efforts, of a small number of us, not members of the Kitchen Committee, along with one or two who are members of the Committee, that we gained that enlargement of the facilities which we now enjoy. For example, for a number of years we could not bring any guests into the dining room of the House of Commons. We had no facilities of any sort. We could merely take them to have a sandwich in a squalid room at the back, infested by all kinds of people who seemed to me to take advantage of the facilities provided for us. We had no privacy. Not only have we no Committee Rooms upstairs, or very few, because they have been taken by all kinds of organisations—and Members here voluntarily abandon their facilities for any ad hoc body that comes along—but we take so undignified a view of our own job that anyone can take away whatever physical amenities are at our disposal. For a very long time it was quite impossible for us to entertain anybody. I know that we are open to grave mis-

understanding in this matter. It is not good demagogy for a Member of Parliament to talk about his facilities: it is always good demagogy for him to surrender his facilities. But there is an obligation upon us, and there has been for a long time, with so many people from other countries coming to London, to have, not less, but far more than the normal facilities for entertaining them and making them aware of what is happening here. But we have, as against normal times, very considerable restrictions. Even in normal times things were not very good.
I do not want to say anything which is too controversial, but the whole of the-physical apparatus of the House of Commons has been built up, over the last 200 years, on the assumption that most Members of Parliament are fairly well to do, that they have houses near by, where they can entertain their friends, and that they are members of clubs, where they can entertain them, or are rich enough to take them to restaurants. There has been no recognition of the fact that during the last 20 to 40 years there has occurred an infiltration of comparatively poor people. I hope that the high rate of Income Tax has recruited more sympathy for us, and that, therefore, I am speaking to a more sympathetic audience than I should have had before the war. It is not fair that we should have placed upon us not only the additional burden arising from much longer Sessions and from the much more variegated and complicated questions that we have to consider but, in addition, the physical disabilities imposed upon us in this antiquated building. I am not against preserving traditional continuities from the past: in fact, I rather like it. At the same time, those traditional reverences should be supplemented and reinforced by modern conveniences. I hope that the members of the Kitchen Committee, in their approaches to the Treasury and to any other Government authority that they may need to approach in this matter, will feel that they have behind them the unanimous support of this House in demanding for us greater physical facilities than we have at present.
Although we have made certain changes, even now if you want to have more than two guests in the dining room you must have another Member of Parliament with you. Hon Members who have


travelled in other parts of the world, know that the facilities afforded there are far superior to ours. The Kitchen Committee should look at this again, and look at it imaginatively. I hope that the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee will regard himself as being not so much the custodian of the balance sheet as the custodian of our interests. He represents us. We are appointing him: he is not being appointed by the Government. I know what happens through the usual channels, but, nevertheless, he is appointed to this eminent, if somewhat exposed, situation by our will. Therefore, I hope he is going to discharge his duty as the custodian of our interests, and not as the custodian of the interests of the Treasury. In the past it has always been suggested that we ought not to be subsidised, but the physical organisation of this place does not satisfy any modern restaurant demands. The relationship of the kitchen to the dining room, the hours that we have to sit, the uncertainty of the numbers here, the uncertainty of the sittings, make it impossible to conform our arrangements with the balance sheet.
The only time that the Kitchen Committee has been able to balance its accounts is when we have had a majority here of poor people, who have been unable to go out to eat. In 1931 the Kitchen Committee balanced its accounts, because we on this side had a majority, and, therefore, we subsidised the Treasury. As soon as there is a majority on that side the Kitchen Committee's accounts are unbalanced. Why? Because they are too sensible. They escape the enormities that we have to suffer. They go elsewhere. I am not blaming them for it; I envy them. I would escape it if I could. Therefore, I hope that the members of the Kitchen Committee will not regard this as being an attack on them, but as being an earnest attempt on our partm——

Mr. Bracewell Smith: Did I understand the hon. Member to say that when his party controlled the Kitchen Committee, it showed a balance in favour?

Mr. Bevan: In 1931 we wiped out the deficit.

Mr. Smith: I cannot accept that.

Mr. Bevan: The Chairman of the Kitchen Committee must not imagine that

I am making a party speech. I am not attacking him. I am trying for a moment to be a defender of the interests of the House of Commons in this matter. All I said was that when we were in the majority we had to dine here. Therefore, the staff were better off. The small tips that were given the staff at meals were far better than were being obtained by the staff from hon. Members opposite who did not dine here as frequently as we had to do. This is on record, and therefore I hope the hon. Member will not regard this in a hostile spirit at all. I do not want to make too much fuss about it, but I do sincerely implore members of the Kitchen Committee, in approaching this task in the new Session, to remember that there are a number of things we want. We want good food. There is no reason why we should have bad food. We want food that is reasonable in price, and, at the same time, we want good conditions for the staff, because the staff conditions here have been deplorable for years. Next, we want to be able, when people come from other Parliaments in other parts of the world, to entertain them here and make them familiar with our point of view, in seemly surroundings and at a decent table.

6.12 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I support the Motion, but first I want to say a few things in support of what my hon. Friend behind me has said. I would make an appeal to the hon. Member. I hope he will not persist in opposing the Motion. I think he has done excellent service by what he has said, not in criticism of the Kitchen Commitee, because I do not agree with him as far as he criticised them, but on the general principle. First, regarding the purely physical matter of the food supplied, and the conditions of service, personally I I think the food supplied is good and well-cooked, but I think the conditions of service are extremely bad, and I am going to say that they are made worse, though not by any fault of the Kitchen Committee. Regarding another point made by my hon. Friend, which I think is of immense importance, and which commend to the attention of the Leader of the House—whom I am glad to see in his place—I think it is most important that it should go out from this House that we are not in the least ashamed of the fact that we are anxious to make this


House a place where visitors from Allied countries, the Dominions and all over the world can be properly entertained, and treated in a reasonable and civilised manner. It is most important that that should go out, and that we should repudiate the sort of foolish penny-a-liner criticism that may come from some quarters to the effect that all that Members of Parliament are concerned with is their own comfort. It is a foolish, penny-a-liner criticism that will inevitably come.
Having said that, I must, within the bounds of Order—and I have to be very careful not to exceed them—point out what has always been the real difficulty about providing amenities through the Kitchen Committee or any other body in this House, and that is the extraordinary system of control of this building. I doubt if the public are aware of it. There are five separate authorities—the line of demarcation of their duties has never been constitutionally defined—who are responsible for this House.
They are in the first place, Mr. Speaker, you yourself and your predecessors, and it is not an act of effusion on my part to say that your control has always taken the form of accepting any recommendations suggested to you by any body of hon. Members, and there has never been any difficulty in presenting them. Secondly, there is the Ministry of Works, which is a Government Department responsible to this House. Next, there are the Metropolitan Police. Perhaps it would not be in Order to do more than mention them, but they have very considerable powers. Fourthly and fifthly come the two bodies who affect this Motion—the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Serjeant at Arms. The Lord Great Chamberlain is an irremovable and hereditary official responsible to nobody, in some respects not even to the Crown. The Serjeant at Arms is not appointed on a recommendation of this House, but directly on a recommendation of the Crown. To put the matter in a nutshell, the situation is the same in this House as it was in Buckingham Palace before the late Prince Consort had the whole matter cleaned up. It was said at that time that the late Prince Consort discovered that one authority was responsible for cleaning the windows in Buckingham Palace, another authority for repairing them and a third authority was responsible for say-

ing whether they should be opened or shut, and not even her late Majesty Queen Victoria could amalgamate all these authorities and say that one person should be responsible.
That is, roughly, the position in the Palace of Westminster, and, while we cannot discuss remedies for it now, it is only fair to say that the Kitchen Committee is greatly hampered by these facts. It will give me great pleasure to expound that matter when it will be in Order to do so, on the occasion of a discussion on the Report of the Select Committee over which I presided. I am seriously considering putting down a humble Petition that these powers of the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Serjeant at Arms should be abated, but I leave that to a future occasion, when it will be in Order to do so.
Let us take the position of the Kitchen Committee in relation to these matters. Assuming that the Kitchen Committee decided, as they might well decide, for reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), that, in view of the fact that this is no longer a House composed of people of wealth, but a House composed very largely of people with small incomes, it would be advisable to keep the refreshment rooms open throughout the year. Could they do it? Not on your life. They would have to get the permission of the Lord Great Chamberlain—and it is most doubtful if it would be given—and of the Serjeant at Arms. That is a derogatory position for the first Legislature of the world to be in, and, therefore, we cannot, in this Debate, discuss the real reason why it is so difficult for the Kitchen Committee, or any other body that wishes to increase the amenities of this House, to carry on.
I hope we shall have an opportunity at some future date, but I think the Kitchen Committee are to be commended—and here I differ from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—for the efforts they have made, in the face of these difficulties, to provide the best amenities possible. I do not think the food is bad; I think, in view of all the difficulties, it is reasonably good. I would like to pay a high tribute to the majority of the staff, who have worked under great difficulties, and I am sure that the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, who has such wide knowledge of this subject and is a most sympathetic


employer, will do everything he can for them. I hope the House will pass this Motion, and I venture, with great respect, to say that I hope they will bear in mind the fight that some of us are determined to make in future against this absolutely medieval and, one might almost say, pre-Saxon, state of affairs.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Muff: The Kitchen Committee are very grateful to the House for affording them an opportunity of bringing before the House not only their privileges but also some of their difficulties. I want to say that the Kitchen Committee are not purveyors of sadism—cruelty to themselves or cruelty to hon. Members of the House and their friends. I would remind the House that, just before the war broke out, we had the co-operation of the late Sir Phillip Sassoon, and the House should be grateful to him for his imagination in the beautifying of the dining rooms, the tea rooms and what was then the news room for hon. Members. I would remind the newer Members that no longer can we invite so many guests or visitors to the dining room, because we have not the use of the Harcourt Room. The Kitchen Committee have not been asleep upon that matter and we should be doubly glad to be able to re-open the Harcourt Room. Two of the buffets had to be closed, one as the result of enemy action and the other because it was needed for other purposes. The strangers' smoking room, a very convenient room in which to see visitors, is no longer available because it has been requisitioned for other useful purposes during the war.

Mr. Bevan: Does my hon Friend regard the "other purposes" as more useful than the discharge of our functions in the House of Commons?

Mr. Muff: The Kitchen Committee think it more useful to allow the visitors' smoking room to be used for the servants of the House, and one of their first desires is the comfort of those who serve the House. In pre-war years we provided 6,600 meals a week and to-day we provide 4,500 meals a week under great difficulties, but with some imagination. Therefore we have surmounted some if not all our difficulties. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) previously

accused us of not being gastronomes, or whatever the word was.

Mr. Bowles: If my hon. Friend went to one of the public schools he ought to have learnt that.

Mr. Muff: I accept very respectfully the rebuke of my hon. Friend. If hon. Members will look at the menu to-day they will see that there are imagination, initiative and inspiration. I would remind the hon. Member for Nuneaton that we are bound to use as many unrationed foods as possible, and that is why we serve a food which is most nutritious.

Mr. Bowles: Tripe.

Mr. Muff: Yes, tripe, which the hon. Member can assimilate, and which he can produce on any public platform. If any reasonable Member of the House looks through the menu for to-day he must see that there is variety, and with regard to costs, the hon. Member for Nuneaton could not get most of those things for the same price at his own favourite restaurant in the West End. He would not only have to pay 5s. for the meal but 7s. 6d. besides for house charges. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I want the House to realise that we can only put on one rationed dish, and that is only in the Members dining room. We cannot put it on in the strangers' room. With regard to the charges mentioned by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) I agree that in pre-war days we supplied, for 1s. 6d., a portion of meat, with vegetables; to-day we supply a portion of meat for 1s. 6d., but we have to charge him 4d. for his potatoes, which is fairly reasonable.

Mr. Bevan: I do not know what my hon. Friend thinks he is doing, but he must really not say these things. I made no charges of that sort at all. It would be extremely unfortunate if these frivolous absurdities went out without any effort to defend the position.

Mr. Muff: The Kitchen Committee have had to contend with this underground movement for some months. The complaints books is there for any Member who wishes to enter his complaints. If there is a serious complaint, we try to remedy it. It is remarked that our staff is not treated as we would like it to be. I can only say that we have had some members of the staff in our employ for a long


time. In fact the manager has been with us for 40 years. There are other members of the staff who have been with us for many years. As a Kitchen Committee we wish that they could become Government servants, so as to be eligible for pension when they come of pensionable age and not have to be dependent on other sources.

Mr. Bowles: Is it not true that every Member who takes a meal is charged a penny for the pension fund, and that the amount of pension is entirely in the discretion of the Kitchen Committee?

Mr. Muff: I was going to mention the fact that the Members of this House very gladly assisted in this by contributing a penny a meal taken in the dining room, and we have accumulated a fund of £3,290 in pennies. A Member of the House who died some 30 years ago left £1,000 in what is called the Jacoby Trust. We have tried to administer that Trust for the benefit of servants of this House by augmenting their pensions. But we can only do this in a very modest way. I assure the House that we take our duties seriously. We do not think that we are the last word in catering or anything like that. Our Chairman has had great experience in catering and we try to follow his lead whenever we possibly can. One Member objected because we have at the top of the menu words to the effect that we want to follow the law as laid down by the Minister of Food. The hon. Member said that this is the High Court of Parliament and that we can do what we like. We cannot do what we like. We have to set an example and we try to do it, and hon. Members, by their support, enable us to fulfil that task and to keep within the law. I want to say distinctly that we cannot and will not ask for any advantages, because we know we should be refused.

Mr. Bevan: Who is asking for privileges?

Mr. Muff: Whatever hon. Members may say to the contrary, I, as a member of the Kitchen Committee, even if I am sacked straight away, am not going to take all these criticisms lying down without making some kind of reply, because I know, having served on it now for a few years, that we have done a jolly good best. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too long."] We are

not ashamed of our stewardship and, if we are re-elected, I can assure the House we shall continue to do our best within the circumscribed position we are in to-day, because supplies are restricted and we can do no other.

6.31 p.m.

Petty Officer Alan Herbert: My hon. old and valued Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Muff) seems to have a fairly substantial chip on his shoulder—I do not know whether that expression is used in Yorkshire—but I can assure him that nobody here wishes to knock it off. I think the House ought to be grateful to hon. Members who have caused a delay in the reappointment of this Committee and so given us an opportunity of this Debate, because it is far too easily assumed by all of us that the appointment of a Kitchen Committee is the obvious and inevitable thing to which there is no alternative, and is therefore an automatic thing about which there ought to be no argument. But of course that is not so at all. There is an alternative. We might do as they do in another place, not appoint a Kitchen Committee but hand the whole thing over to a private contractor. I am not aware whether the private contractor in that place makes a profit out of that business; I assume he does, otherwise he probably would not carry on.

Mr. Buchanan: One of them went bankrupt.

Petty Officer Herbert: That may be so; but I am informed by hon. Gentlemen and Noble Lords who have had the privilege of eating in that place that things are better there. I do not know. But suppose for a moment that we do not pass this Motion and that we do hand these things over to some enterprising man, and I can think of no better firm than that which is so well led by my hon. Friend the ex-Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. What would he say? I think he would say, "Here is an enterprise on which I am on velvet—no rents to pay, no rates to pay, no house charge." Then I think he would say, "I must look up the queer litigation of which the Senior Burgess for Oxford University 10 years ago was the trembling but bold instigator." This is very relevant, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks of the Noble Lord and to other remarks made by my hon.


Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East. I do assure you, Sir, that I am not trying to get anything over. Ten and a half years ago I went trembling to Bow Street on a cold and frosty morning and laid a prosecution against the Kitchen Committee of the House of Commons. The magistrate, who, I think, was trembling even more than I was, rejected my plea and stated a case to the High Court and, 10 years ago almost to a day, 14th December, 1934, that case came before a very strong Divisional Court composed of the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Hewart), Mr. Justice Avory and Mr. Justice Rigby Smith—all of whom are now dead—and (the reference is 1934, the King's Bench Division, page 594) Lord Hewart said:
I need do no more than quote the words of Lord Denman in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard.
The words of Lord Denman were these:
The Commons of England are not invested with more of power and dignity by their legislative character than by that which they bear as the grand inquest of the nation—
That, apparently, is the crigin of that famous phrase. But this is the important point:
All the privileges that can be required for the energetic discharge of the duties inherent in that high trust are conceded without a murmur or a doubt.
The result of that particular case was that we were freed from licence duty and the licensing laws.
I am now going back to my private contractor. I say that any private contractor who came in those circumstances would say: "Here I am on velvet. Not only have I a highly distinguished and important duty but I can run this thing at a profit. I can give better food, cheaper than it can be got at any place in London; but, of course, there is one snag." That snag is the irregularity of hours and the irregularity of days and months. But I think he would say, "I can get over that." I agree with the Noble Lord that there has been some exaggeration about the quality of the food; I do not think it is very bad, but I am quite sure that a private contractor could make it better.
Secondly, there is the question of guests. I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr.

Bevan) that it is most important that more and more people should come in not merely to see our proceedings from the galleries but to go into the dining rooms and see how even there we continue to conduct our business. What happens? I make no complaint against the waiters, who do their best for us, but we invite people to come here, and they sit in the gallery through Questions and two or three speeches. Then, naturally, they want a little refreshment. We give them a glass of sherry and then we have to fling them out at half past one, which is far too late to get any food elsewhere when, if we could proceed to entertain them further, they might perhaps return to the gallery and get a little further instruction in our proceedings. The hon. Member mentioned the Harcourt Room. Why in the world is it not open? Why should we not be able to entertain all our guests there and in all those other private rooms? What is the difficulty? If it is lack of labour, then I go back to the judgment of Lord Hewart and suggest that the Committee go to the Minister of Labour and say that on the judgment of Lord Hewart in that case, we are entitled to ask that labour be directed to open those private rooms in order that Members of the House of Commons may entertain more guests.
Thirdly, there is the question of the staff. Here I may have to part company with my private contractor, but I am not at all sure. We have all heard of the famous phrase, "The House of Commons is the finest club in Europe." Now, one of the best points of a club is that there is no tipping. It is the most comforting thing about a club that you are not always putting your hand in your pocket, but we have to do it in this place. We do not mind, because we know that our servants are not properly paid; but we should like to stop tipping. And I should like to see the Minister of Labour here, for he proposed in the Catering Wages Act—a Measure for which I declined to vote because I thought it was not very adequate—and said that the degrading habit of tipping was to cease all over the country. I have not seen many results from that Act yet, except that the standard of tipping seems to be higher than ever.
However that may be, here in this House, led by the Kitchen Committee, we should set an example. I am perfectly sure that I shall not be making friends of


the staff, for the fact is catering staffs do like tips really and nothing in the world is going to stop it. I do think, however, that our staff should be properly paid all the year round. I do not see why they should not have a guaranteed wage all the year round and, if they like to take other jobs during the Recess at higher wages, then some arrangement could be made. Year after year we talk about this thing and nothing happens. Even there, however, I think my private contractor having, as I say, this velvety job, would deal with that problem.
Those are the three points. I am sure nobody here and nobody outside will think we are merely talking about our carnal pleasures. We do not get much out of this business; let us have a few tiny material privileges of this kind. We are not asking for bands in the dining room, or cocktail parties or anything of that sort; all we are asking for is that hon. Members, and especially the poor Members, should be able to get a better meal much cheaper than anywhere else, so that never again will anyone be able to say at lunch time, "The Senior Burgess for Oxford University is speaking. Let us have lunch in town because the speech is bad and the food is bad too." Let the Kitchen Committee not be afraid of asking for better things. Let them go to the Treasury, if necessary, and ask for more money for the staff and to the Minister of Labour and ask for more labour, basing themselves on the High Court's judgment. I think my hon. Friend is quite wrong, technically, when he says that he is bound by the Minister of Food. I am sure we should not want to ask far extra rations but, constitutionally, if we liked, we could do so by the judgment of Lord Hewart in that case. I do hope the Kitchen Committee will consider this matter seriously, because if there is no improvement in all respects during the present Session, I, or at any rate those who will be here next year, may be inclined to put down a Motion to oppose the setting up of the Committee and suggest instead that a private business man take over the whole affair.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff) should complain about the Kitchen Committee being discussed here to-day. A wise chairman and a wise Committee would

welcome discussion of the work that they were doing——

Mr. Muff: I said so.

Mr. Buchanan: My hon. Friend used an argument which is becoming all, too common nowadays, namely, saying words of abuse instead of using argument and reason. Nowadays, it is usual for some people to say "Fascist" when disagreeing with another person. It is thought that that word dismisses him altogether. My hon. Friend used the same kind of argument in speaking of an "underground movement." I personally still believe in the arts of argument and reason, instead of using abusive phrases. I, like others, would like to pay my compliments to the members of the various staffs in the House of Commons, the refreshment-room workers, the police, the engineers and the like, who render so much good service. May I be allowed to say a word or two, which is probably not strictly in Order, in praise of the Clerks at the Table? When I entered this House there was miniature warfare, day in and day out, between Members and the Clerks at the Table, who thought it was their duty to interfere with every Member. Since then there has been a radical change and I, for one, now find the Clerks helpful to me in my work.
I do not want to enter into the question of entertaining foreign delegates or other people outside this House. I have always been thankful that I was not a London Member. I have always been thankful that my constituency was poor, and that I had few visitors because nobody could afford to come to London. In any case, I always objected to being turned into a tourist guide, because I thought I had more important work to do. Further, if you showed parties round the House it was stated that that was all you had to do, whereas if you did not it was said that you were discourteous. I must confess that I have no patience with people who are afraid of saying that there is a dignity and honourableness attaching to the House of Commons, and that a Member of the House of Commons ought to be rewarded with decent service in a host of ways, which I have not time to enumerate now. I remember when the £600 a year was first granted, together with first-class travel. I represent a poverty-stricken area such as few can imagine, yet at election time no person


raised this question. What mattered was that a man was a Member of Parliament. People will not grudge a Member his reward; what they are anxious about is the service he is rendering.
I was pleased with the speech made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I have no secretary, but I happen to be married to an intelligent woman who is also an extremely indulgent woman. When I came to London it was impossible to take even one's wife into the old Strangers' Dining Room. With the aid of the late Speaker we ultimately were given that permission. But I am not so concerned with the dining room; I am concerned with that area between the Members' tea room and the passage outside. What an abortion. I bring poor people here and I take them sometimes to tea. I did so just before our last Adjournment. They were men who worked on the railway, and were used to eating their meals at work. Yet I felt ashamed to take them into that place. I would have liked to take them into something better. I would have liked to give them decent food in a clean and pleasant place, in the same way as I do at home. That place is an abortion which ought to go. It is not sufficient to say that all this is done for the convenience of the staff. There ought to be provision for the staff and for us as well. I know the difficulties, especially in war-time, but things could be considerably improved.
I have never complained about a notice about the law, which has been referred to already in this Debate, but the assumption underlying that is that we would not carry it out. The hon. Gentleman who is Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, or, rather, has been chairman up till now, has one thing in common with me. He and I like soccer, and he knows that a notice about the law would not be put in a soccer programme, because the assumption would be that the law would be carried out. One of my vices is that I smoke occasionally. Most men want to smoke after having a cup of tea or food. But in the tea room I go to nothing like that is allowed. I visited a Midland workmen's canteen the other day and found there cleanliness and food that I envied. Surely the House of Commons could be placed on that level. That is not

too much to ask. Democracies and constitutional Assemblies are going. It will not do any good to belittle ourselves. Such democracies and Assemblies are things to be proud of, and I ask the House of Commons to help Members as much as possible by providing all that is reasonable in the way of food and facilities.
I have been a Member of the House of Commons for some years now, and I am glad to say that it is not going back, but is, to some extent, improving. It is a sober and a clean House of Commons. Its Members' characters compare with those of most folk. I trust that the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee will give better facilities for food and make it within the reasonable grasp of every Member to purchase it. I utter these words for the future, post-war years. When I see the legislative programme, those who are going to be diligent are going to have less time to go outside. Do not put a penalty on those who attend. Everything now is a penalty on the regular attender. I trust that the Chairman of the Committee will not think that those who have raised this matter are hostile to him or to his work, but we ask him to take the necessary steps.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: I think the House will have listened with great interest to everything that has been said about the Kitchen Committee and I am glad that its appointment has aroused such widespread attention, because it is a rather intimate affair. Food and speeches go together. You make a bad speech and you have bad food and you do not know which to blame. The Debate has certainly provided an opportunity for Members to ventilate their different viewpoints. I have been a Member for 10 years and have enjoyed the confidence of the Committee as Chairman for seven years and during that long period I have only missed two meetings, so that I cannot be accused of being dilatory in my duties. I was very glad that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said what he did and that his attitude seems to have changed so completely since Thursday week, when he spoke of the Select Committee being incompetent and lacking in gastronomic imagination and said that the meals—not some meals but all meals—were dull, expensive and had. That is


a pretty wholesale condemnation. But to-day he said he hoped that the House, and the Committee in particular, would accept one of two attitudes, either one of hostility or one of accepting that whatever was said was in a spirit of decent co-operation. I am very glad to accept the second view. I hope everything that has been said will be accepted as showing that they all want to help. We know how the Committee is handicapped. Hon. Members will remember with some satisfaction the delightful functions that used to be given before the war in the rooms on the terrace. They will remember entertaining their constituents to strawberry teas.

Mr. Bevan: They were very expensive.

Mr. Smith: Anyhow the facilities were there and food was unrestricted. Then we had the outbreak of war, and the routine of the House was somewhat altered in consequence. Then we had the very heavy blitz of 1940–41, when a great deal of space had to be taken from the kitchen department and our sphere of service was somewhat restricted. This department applies for its food to the local food office, and we have to apply in accordance with the number of meals we serve. We cannot get any increased allowance of food except from the food office, and therefore we are entirely in the hands of the Minister. We get blamed indirectly for quite a lot of things. Do not blame us for something over which we have no control.

Mr. Bevan: There are certain hotels which have abnormal demands made upon them at present because they are centres for visitors from abroad. Would the Ministry of Food dare assert that those hotels are not having additional rations? We want to have the same as the Savoy, for instance.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): All are on the same basis.

Mr. Bevan: I am sure the Savoy is not on the same basis as pre-war.

Mr. Mabane: They are on the same basis as this House.

Mr. Smith: Unrationed food is bound to be expensive. As far as rationed food is concerned, we make our application to the food office in the usual way and it is

granted in accordance with the amount that anyone else gets. No concession is made to the House. We should be very glad indeed if the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) would use his persuasive powers and ask the Minister to relax a little.

Petty Officer Herbert: I have done my part.

Mr. Smith: We got to the period of 1940–41. I want to go back to the days of 10th May, when we had to transfer our equipment and staff to another place. It was not an easy matter to get going. Some members of the staff were without homes and they had to travel to the House and to get away at night, as everyone else did, and the conditions of service were very difficult indeed. These were some of the difficulties that we had. I agree with so many remarks that hon. Members have made that, when the Committee is set up, I am certain that every member of it will take very earnest note of all the suggestions and criticisms that have been made. We must remember that we are limited in space. We have not any rooms on the terrace now. The space at our disposal is very limited owing to the effect of the blitz and so on. There, again, the acquisition of these rooms is not in the province of the Kitchen Committee. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was one of a group which went round to see some of the rooms, and he knows the difficulties.

Mr. Bevan: I was secretary of that group. What I would like to ask my hon. Friend is why, if the Kitchen Committee finds difficulty in persuading some of these ancient atavisms that control us, it does not come to the House and ask our assistance.

Mr. Smith: I am not certain that the Kitchen Committee has that power. We could recommend the Department concerned——

Earl Winterton: If the Serjeant at Arms or the Lord Great Chamberlain refuse facilities, will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to report to the House? Some of us will find means of dealing with it, and very effective means.

Mr. Smith: I can assure the Noble Lord that now we have had this Debate the


Members of the Committee will be much more energetic in that direction than they have been. If we felt that the House was behind us, I think that more recommendations would be made. I am sure that Members of the Committee will bear that in mind at our future meetings. I want the House to know of the limitations on our work. A certain room has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and I quite agree. As the Noble Lord knows, I have made certain suggestions for the new House which I hope will be carried out. At the moment there is a lack of material to equip canteens. Whether we should get priority for our work or not I do not know.
I know the Committee very well, and I want the House to be assured that we work very hard. We have never failed in any instance to consider complaints, suggestions or criticisms which have been made by private Members. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) referred to the appointment of a new catering manager. That is a matter which the Committee has already considered, and I can assure the hon. Member that the appointment will not be made unless a very exceptional man comes along. I can assure him that we will not exclude those serving in the Forces who are not able to apply at the present time. In the past the Committee has done what it could to serve the Members of this House. Members come first in the service. The question of guests must of necessity come second under the conditions of wartime, and there must be a limitation on their number. The labour difficulties are still with us. Food control is still with us. I want to take this opportunity of confirming what has already been said about members of the staff. No one knows the members of the staff better than I do. They have worked with us for 20 or 30 years, and if we had not had very loyal and faithful service from those old members of the staff during this period of trial and difficulty, I do not know what we should have done.
I want to give one or two instances. There was an occasion when Members were called together by wireless at 10 o'clock. At 6 o'clock we had a meal ready for them. There was another occasion when the other place was without gas and water, and we had all the food cooked elsewhere in order to "keep the home

fires burning." There was another occasion when the whole establishment, staff and equipment, had to be transferred to another place within an hour. That was done and a meal was on the table within an hour. Those are a few of many things which one could enumerate for which the staff must receive the thanks of the House. I hope that the Committee will be appointed and that, when it is appointed, it will have the confidence of the House. I hope, too, that the House will allow the Chairman to be appointed by the Committee and that the Committee will be able to come to their decisions without any interference from any Member of the House.

7.7 p.m.

Commander King-Hall: There are two points I wish to make. One is a new point, which I hope the House will agree is of some substance. The value of this Debate is that it has shown that the root evil is simply the extraordinary inferiority complex which Members of Parliament have had when any discussion has taken place in the past about the facilities they require to carry out their duties properly. I hope that after what has been said in this Debate the Kitchen Committee will be fortified and feel that it has the House behind it when it insists that certain things can be done, as they should be done, to make it easier for Members to carry out their duties in so far as the provision of refreshments is concerned. My second point is this. Various hon. Members have pointed out the difficulty we are in in connection with providing facilities for the entertainment of guests who come to see us and this honourable House. I may be over-prejudiced on this, but I feel that it is of the utmost importance at the present time, with so many of our Allies in this country, and with Service troops coming home on leave, that every opportunity should be given to people to come and see the House of Commons at work. I must say frankly that this suggestion has been before my colleagues on the Kitchen Committee and has not met with their approval, because, I believe, they felt they would not have the House behind them. They may think differently to-night.
The problem is one of space, and I suggest that for the next 12 months at least we have a large unoccupied breathing space in the shape of the floor area of the old Chamber—I see no reason what-


ever—I hope it will not shock Members—why a temporary structure should not be put on the floor of the old House of Commons. I believe that many American officers and others would be only too pleased to be able to sit down in a sort of tea room there and feel they were actually sitting on the site where so many historic events took place. It may be argued that there would be staff difficulties. I am convinced that if the W.V.S. of Westminster were asked to provide personnel to serve in that canteen or tea room, they would be only too delighted to do it and that we should have as many people as we wanted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered:
That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House.

Committee to consist of Seventeen Members:

Sir Ernest Bennett, Sir Reginald Blair, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Cooke, Viscountess Davidson, Sir Henry Fildes, Mrs. Hardie, Commander King-Hall, Mr. Liddall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Mr. R. C. Morrison, Mr. Muff, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Bracewell Smith, Mr. Evelyn Walkden, Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Major A. S. L. Young.

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Three to be the quorum. [Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS

Ordered:
That Mr. Thomas Fraser be discharged from the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, etc., and that Mr. Burke be added to the Committee."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — MISSING SOLDIERS (INQUIRY PROCEDURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]

7.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: The subject which I am raising to-night is of a rather unusual

nature. It concerns the treatment of cases in which soldiers who are on active service disappear under peculiar circumstances, without a trace. The type of case I have in view is not of course the normal one which might be expected to arise if a man is missing as a result of operations in the firing line. That type of case is ultimately dealt with as if the man had become a casualty, and his dependants are eligible for pension. The type of case I have in view is that in which a soldier—or indeed a sailor or an airman—disappears mysteriously while serving in an operational zone but not in the actual firing line. My two reasons for bringing forward this matter to-night are first that I wish to raise a specific case about which I have had a very prolonged and voluminous correspondence with the War Office and, secondly, because I want to draw attention to this general question having regard to the fact that we shall have to maintain Armies of Occupation in many European countries before very long and that it may very well be that, by the activities of underground movements, mysterious occurrences of this nature may happen from time to time. It is necessary that the procedure by which these cases are dealt with should be reviewed.
Perhaps I may begin by explaining the present practice for dealing with the type of case in which a man disappears when serving overseas in some theatre of war. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) is, I understand, replying for the War Office, and he will no doubt correct me if my statements are wrong. What happens at present I understand is that a search is made for the missing man and if he is not found within a reasonable time a court of inquiry is convened. Unless any evidence to the contrary is adduced before that court of inquiry—let us remember that there will probably be no trace—the man concerned is declared to be illegally absent, under Section 72 (1) of the Army Act. Thereafter, and after some lapse of time if the man has not surrendered to the authorities or has not been apprehended, this finding of the court of inquiry under the terms of Section 72 (2) of the Army Act, has the legal effect of a conviction for desertion, as if the man had been tried by court martial. Thereby, the man incurs the stigma of deser-


tion, and his family suffers the substantial penalty of having the Army allowances, war service grants and so forth withdrawn.
I am going to suggest that this procedure may well operate harshly, and that it has done so in the particular case I am going to raise. To begin with, no onus of proving desertion is placed on the military authorities and furthermore no benefit of the doubt appears to be given to the missing man in any of the proceedings of a court of inquiry. I feel that this procedure requires revision and I hope that the Government may be convinced by the arguments that I am going to put forward to-night. I am going to illustrate my case by citing the details of this particular case, on which I have had long dealings with the War Office.
It concerns a young Edinburgh man, married with a family, who joined the Royal Scots in 1940. Subsequently he went with the first battalion of the Royal Scots to India. He was a good soldier, took part in active service and was wounded in Burma in March, 1943. After leaving hospital, he returned to his unit which, in the autumn of last year, was stationed about 80 miles from Poona. On 30th September, 1943, this man, Lance-Corporal Norris, was provided with a railway warrant and sent to No. 3 Indian-British General Hospital at Poona to see an eye specialist. He was short-sighted and required spectacles. There is evidence to show that he reported at the hospital and indeed spent the night there and saw the eye specialist on the following morning. On 1st October he was discharged from hospital, with orders to return to his unit, but the moment he left the hospital precincts he disappeared, and nothing has ever been heard of him since.
I come to what I think is the most extraordinary and serious part of this tragic occurrence. I am afraid that I must stress the point that it confers no credit at all on the military authorities in India. Hon. Members will scarcely believe that although this man disappeared on 1st October, 1943, this fact was not known to the military authorities in India until January, 1944, when the commanding officer of the 1st Battalian Royal Scots received a letter from Mrs. Norris asking if anything had happened to her husband,

as she had not heard from him for a very long time and he was a regular writer. I would like to quote from letters on this point. The first is a letter to Mrs. Norris by her husband's company commander, and is dated 26th January, 1944. It contains these words:
The fact that he was not admitted to hospital only came to light when his mail was returned to the unit and on receipt of a letter from you.
The second letter bearing on the same subject was written by the adjutant of the Battalion to Mrs. Norris, on 25th September, 1944, and says:
On receipt of a letter from my mother in January, I immediately made inquiries by telegram of 2nd echelon and the paymaster, who both gave September, 1943, as their last record of him.
I ought to explain that the adjutant's mother knew the Norris family. We have the extraordinary circumstance that the man's disappearance was not known until word was received from Scotland three or four months later. It appears there was no proper checking system between the unit and the hospital. Thus I have an extract from a letter written by the adjutant, the same letter as I have referred to earlier, to Mrs. Norris, which says:
At the time in question, admissions and discharges to hospital were not intimated to the unit in a great many cases, and therefore it was not commented on that he had not returned, but he was published in orders (copies of which go to 2nd echelon and the paymaster) as having gone to hospital.
Is that not a very strange state of affairs. Here was Norris's mail piling up in the hospital and his pay accumulating in the hands of the paymaster, yet neither the hospital nor the paymaster thought fit to make any inquiries as to what had happened to him. Nothing was done until the Colonel received the letter from Mrs. Norris in January, 1944, three and a half months later. Then the trail was quite cold and no trace could be found of him, but that did not stop the court of inquiry which was held some time later in the summer, from declaring that he was illegally absent.
Thereafter in September, 1944, all allowances to Mrs. Norris, the man's wife, were stopped, and I am very sorry to tell the Members of the House that she is in poor health, and both she and her son are in receipt of public assistance from the Edinburgh public assistance depart-


ment. There is no means of helping her from any Service source at all. It is no use my saying very much about the Army authorities in India over this matter but I do think the people responsible in India are deserving of every censure possible for their negligence. What I want to do is to get this decision reversed or overruled. I hope the Secretary of War will see fit to overrule the decision of the Court of Inquiry. I believe it is in his power so to do. I urge this on three grounds. My first reason why the decision should be overruled is because of the negligence of the local military authorities in India in having allowed four months to elapse without knowing that Lance-Corporal Norris was missing, thereby allowing a state of affairs to arise which not even a Scotland Yard detective could be expected to unravel. It is, I feel, impossible to trace a man in a country like India after three or four months' delay.
Secondly, I want to stress the point that conditions in India are not normal I think every one realises that unfortunately there has been and is a good deal of excitement, unrest and crime in that vast country. Here we have to imagine the case of this young soldier, short-sighted, inexperienced in a strange land, being discharged from hospital and perhaps having to wait for a while before getting a train back to his unit. Maybe he goes for a walk and is decoyed down some alley way or back street and is set upon, robbed and murdered. I suggest to the House that in all probability Lance-Corporal Norris was the victim of foul play. I challenge anyone to say that is in any way an unlikely theory——

Viscount Hinchingbroke: Did the evidence which the hon. and gallant Member is about to give come before the Court of Inquiry?

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I cannot say what evidence came before them. I am giving my theory that he may have been decoyed and murdered. I am stating facts as far as the correspondence is concerned. That is my theory, which I think is a very reasonable one, that he has been the victim of foul play. Strange things happen in Eastern countries like India and that is not at all an improbable solution.
But the third ground on which I urge the Secretary of State to over-rule the Court of Inquiry is that of character. I

say that in a case like this where there could not possibly have been any substantial evidence of any description before the Court of Inquiry they should have paid due regard to his record as a soldier, and his character, I hope to be able to show, was first-class. For instance, I will quote from a letter sent from the colonel commanding the 1st Battalion of the Royal Scots to Mrs. Norris. It is dated 17th May, 1944, and reads as follows:
Lance-Corporal Norris was known to be a first-class soldier, and I personally do not think for one moment he is a deserter. He is well spoken of by his company commander and it is known that he used to write home quite regularly.
Secondly, a letter from the Adjutant, also written to Mrs. Norris, dated 25th September, 1944, which runs as follows:
Since we first realised that anything was amiss I can assure you that everything possible has been done to trace your husband but without, I am afraid, any results. The only way it could be done was by posting him as a deserter though we knew that was one of the last things he would be.
Finally, a few days ago Mrs. Norris received from a soldier in her husband's regiment a newspaper published in India but printed in English. Unfortunately, this paper had not got the name on it or the date, but it could be easily identified as a fairly recent issue. It refers, for example, to the strike at the Manchester gas works. This paper devotes a large part of a column to dealing with this case, including a large-sized photograph of Lance-Corporal Norris and has evidently been inserted either by the police or the military authorities in India. In this newspaper it is stated, among other things:
His unit emphasises the fact that Norris was a first-class soldier happily married with a wife in Edinburgh and was definitely not the type of man to desert. They feel his disappearance must be due to loss of memory or foul play and would be grateful of any information about him.
That has been circulated in the Press in India, which shows it comes from some official source. There is an overwhelming case for treating Lance-Corporal Norris as a casualty and his family should be eligible for a pension.
I come to my final point. I want to apply the lessons of this case to the more general situation which may arise. We are faced to-day, as we all know, with a tragic situation in Greece. Much fighting


is going on and there may be occurrences of this same kind there. The same set of circumstances will face us in other occupied countries and will face the Allied Armies when we get into Germany. Are we to understand from the way in which this case has been treated that any British soldier who disappears without trace in an occupied country is automatically to be treated as a deserter by a Court of Inquiry. If so, that is a very serious matter indeed. One can easily imagine cases of sentries or groups of perhaps one or two men on leave in some German town or area disappearing. After all, it is known to the whole world that the Nazi underground movement is being feverishly organised by Himler and what is more likely than that they would murder any Allied soldier they got hold of, and the Germans are past masters in deeds of that description and of disposing of remains without trace. This is a serious matter indeed. These things are only too likely to happen in the occupied countries. It would be monstrous and unjust if any British fighting man who disappears were to be more or less automatically treated as a deserter. An Army of Occupation will not be any picnic for those who take part in it, and we in this House have a duty to try and protect the rights of our soldiers in this matter. For that reason I ask the Government to give serious thought to this question both in the interests of the good name of our soldiers, sailors and airmen and the financial security of their families.

7.28 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): I would like first to explain that in the absence of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who is ill, and the unavoidable absence of the Secretary of State for War I have been asked to deal with this case. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) indicated to me a couple of days ago the points he intended to raise, and I took the precaution of going very thoroughly into all the correspondence, which transpired, and of obtaining as much information as possible with regard to what has taken place. It must be remembered that under Section 72 of the Army Act, when any soldier has been absent without leave from his duty for a period of 21 days:

A court of inquiry may as soon as practictable be assembled and inquire in the prescribed manner on oath or solemn declaration, which such court is hereby authorised to administer, respecting the fact of such absence.
There is no denying the fact that the court of inquiry has been carried out strictly within the terms of the Army Act, but the question with regard to the lapse of time before the inquiry took place is perhaps a little understandable. My hon. and gallant Friend said that Lance-Corporal Norris left his unit to visit Poona to fulfil an appointment with an eye specialist. This was in September, 1943.
I am informed that when he did not return to his unit the unit presumed that he had been admitted to hospital. Some time elapsed. When mail was returned to his unit, and his wife began to ask why she had not heard from him, the fullest possible inquiries were made at No. 3 Base Hospital, and all hospitals in Poona were asked for information. But the results were negative. In April, 1944, a court of inquiry was set up. It was unfinished, owing to the unit proceeding on active service. In June, 1944, the court of inquiry was completed, and they found that Lance-Corporal Norris had been absent without leave, and was, therefore, a deserter. Consequently, the allowances for his wife and child were discontinued.
With the best will in the world, the Secretary of State has no power to vary that discontinuance of allowances. It is not for him to discuss whether the court of inquiry, properly set up, were right or wrong in their verdict, because he has not seen the background of the evidence. Anyone familiar with the discussions which used to take place on the Army (Annual) Act knows that the procedure is specifically laid down by this House. Therefore, I think the hon. and gallant Member will not charge the Secretary of State with having discontinued the allowances. As to whether the Army Council ought to have known this proceeding, my hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly entitled to put that forward. But the court of inquiry was set up to determine, not whether Lance-Corporal Norris was a good soldier or not, but whether he was absent without leave. I am told that, although there is a good deal of sympathy with the wife and child—and no constituent can ever charge the hon. and gallant


Member with not persisting in his point of view on this case—the fact remains that, while all inquiries have been made—and I have seen the paper with the photograph of the man, asking whether anybody knows anything about Lance-Corporal Norris—up to now there has been no fresh evidence. If any more evidence can be found, the case will be reconsidered. I promise that I will convey to the Secretary of State for War the hon. and gallant Member's plea and the arguments he put forward.
The second point is: what is likely to happen in enemy occupied countries? My right hon. Friend says that if the military situation in enemy-occupied territory is such that there is danger of soldiers being murdered, the military authorities will take steps to provide against that by laying down "out-of-bounds" areas, and ensuring that soldiers do not go about singly in "in bounds" areas where danger exists. If a soldier did disappear, it may be presumed that the commanding officer would be alive to the possibility of foul play, and would cause immediate investigations to be made into that possibility. If there were any reason to suspect foul play, the court of inquiry would be informed, and would take that into account. In order, however, to make quite certain that courts of inquiry do consider the possibility of foul play, instructions are being issued.

With regard to the second point, a good deal of what my hon. and gallant Friend had in mind is being done. It is one of these things on which no general statement could be made, because every case must be dealt with entirely on its merits.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Could that provision about foul play have been applied in India?

Mr. Smith: That is beyond me at the moment. I can only say that that has been done. Every individual case can be dealt with only on the evidence available, and it must be presumed that members of these courts of inquiry will exercise their functions in accordance with the law, and make quite sure that they give full consideration to the possibility of foul play, and instructions are being given to ensure this. The Army Council would annul a finding which was shown, by subsequent information, to be unjustified. I can only say that I have been very thoroughly into the case, that I have given the information to the House which would have been given had the Financial Secretary been here, and that I will pass on to the Secretary of State for War what my hon. and gallant Friend thinks may have happened.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes before Eight o'Clock.